Lolita love affair scandalises Italy

[Phantasmagoria]

Age =/= Maturity

An equation everyone must know.

[Khaos]

Originally Posted by Ziv

You people who are going on and on about "It's ok because they love each other" obviously don't know anything about age of consent laws. Children are NOT FIT to make decisions like that!

And who says that? If the law states, that they aren't they aren't? What kind of argument is that? If the law states the earth is flat, then it is?
And IF children in this age are NOT FIT for such decisions, than it's because they aren't educated to be it, because the law says they can not be it and everyone believes it, so noone tries to educate their children to be fit (and even if some do, the children aren't allowed to be free anyway) and then there come the scientists and observe, that the children aren't fit, so they affirm the law, which in the first hand is the main reason that they aren't fit. The whole thing is a self-preserving reality system. Just hypothesize the possibility that children ARE fit of deciding for themselves if you teach them good and let them be free.

And I say, it's totally ok to love each other freely and truly no matter what gender or age. In details every action must be consensual of course, but if there really IS love, than there can be no non-consensual action, because hurting the other one or forcing him to something would not by an option.

It makes me sad how much hate and disgust there is just because there is too little differentiation between people who rape and abuse children and people who honestly love.

[Archontic]

Originally Posted by Phantasmagoria

Age =/= Maturity

An equation everyone must know.

It's not the sole variable, but it does play a large part in it. I've seen that "equation" used by a great many 12-15 year olds (who are usually obsessed with Rocky Horror and MCR or Fallout Boy, go figure), and I assure you that they're full of it. Even I have moments where I act naive, and like an eighteen year old, because that's what I am.

[Ziv]

Originally Posted by Khaos

And who says that? If the law states, that they aren't they aren't? What kind of argument is that? If the law states the earth is flat, then it is?
And IF children in this age are NOT FIT for such decisions, than it's because they aren't educated to be it, because the law says they can not be it and everyone believes it, so noone tries to educate their children to be fit (and even if some do, the children aren't allowed to be free anyway) and then there come the scientists and observe, that the children aren't fit, so they affirm the law, which in the first hand is the main reason that they aren't fit. The whole thing is a self-preserving reality system. Just hypothesize the possibility that children ARE fit of deciding for themselves if you teach them good and let them be free.

Education has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the mental and emotional maturity of the child. i.e. whether they are old enough that they are no longer impressionable, and can be reasonably expected to make decisions which are in their own best interest. You cannot teach emotional maturity. That's what parents are for. Parents act on behalf of the child until the child is fit to act in their own best interest.

And I say, it's totally ok to love each other freely and truly no matter what gender or age. In details every action must be consensual of course, but if there really IS love, than there can be no non-consensual action, because hurting the other one or forcing him to something would not by an option.

I'm afraid you're living in an idealistic fantasy-land. Such a relationship does not exist. Furthermore, your attempt to apply it to this situation is extremely precarious considering that their interactions consisted mostly of text messaging on the internet. How someone acts on the internet is not the same as how they act in real life. Furthermore, it's very easy to become attached to a fantasy and not like the real person at all.

It makes me sad how much hate and disgust there is just because there is too little differentiation between people you rape and abuse children and people who honestly love.

I absolutely agree. If this guy really cared about her well-being, he wouldn't have had sex with her.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by FatPianoBoy

Actually, she's barely under the age of consent in most of Europe and is of age in Japan. 13 was about the usual age for marriage back in the day. Most of the time they turned out fine.
Also, it's hard to gauge whether or not she is a child in mind without having met her.

Amazing that a blink of an eye in a species (a few hundred years, last decade, currently).... makes such a difference: not.

The age of consent is certainly not set by rational analysis (i.e. neuroscience or psychological assessment) -- its set by what irrationally horrifies someone who has influence to set the law.

Personally, I think post-pubescents ought to focus on studies and get their education rather than get tangled up in affairs. But then those people don't always listen to me.

Putting someone in jail for *consensual* behavior ... should be examined pretty skeptically. Define "child" (usually one thinks of a pre-pubescent when one uses that word). Does everyone understand the operational and pre-operational stages of mental development as currently understood by science?

Not really taking a position here... just playing some devil's advocacy because I'm not seeing some solid foundation behind some assertions by the "OMG" faction.

[EXEs]

Ah, love. Such a beautiful thing, isn't it. I support these two, seeing as it is consensual. Love conquers all, I suppose.

[aka Providence]

love is a piss poor reason to do something, honestly. of course, if they accept whatever consequence that stands in their way, then so be it. let them resolve their problem on their own.

though it's still sick to me no matter what.

[Jinto]

There is not only IQ but also EQ, while IQ is about your level of intelligence in your peer group/age, EQ is about social abilites in your peer group/age. Age based laws implicitly assume a certain EQ by age. Though if this EQ doesn't apply for a 13 year old that is not the typical 13 year old, one can ask if the law should also apply in this case.
Now 13 years seems still very young to me, I doubt she had the EQ of an 18 year old, which would allow to bypass/ease (that much) the proposed penalty defined in the law.

If the EQ is that of a typical 13 year old, then it does not matter if there was consent from her side or not. The EQ would not be high enough to oversee all the consequences of what she is doing. And for that reason such laws exist.

[aka Providence]

^i'd agree to that. what irks me is the court ruled in favor of the man because they thought the couple loved each other.

[2H-Dragon]

I don't give a fuck even if she would be mature enough. There are things you only go trough later in life. Which all help you develop and makes you ready for other things in life.

If the love was so "real." He would be able to keep his pants on and love her without the sexual aspect and w8 till she's old enough. They probably aren't going to see each other anytime soon atm.

By the time she's old enough and the family can't do anything anymore to stop them seeing anymore. She will already have found someone else, but meh kids will be kids, pedo's will be pedo's. >_>

-1 for the Italiën court and here I was thinking we dutchies were tolerant...

Stop being so naïve that they aren't hurting anyone. The girl is getting hurt including her family...

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by FatPianoBoy

I've been saying for a while how paedophlia (though whether the involved in this case can be identified as such is debatable) and relationships crossing the age of consent is very slowly crawling in the same direction homosxeuality was a few decades ago.

I'm with FatPianoBoy and Vexx on the issue of "pedophilia" in general. Conservatives in my country would love to use this case as an example of the dreaded "slippery slope", to support their case against legalising homosexual sex between men.

On this case in particular, I'd first like to ask, what's the legal age of consent in Italy? Secondly, why that age? Is it even possible to measure "emotional maturity" reliably? Because the implicit assumption here is that the girl is not mature enough to know the consequences of her actions. By that yardstick, I'd say that I'm emotionally immature on many issues too, and I'm well past my adolescence. Does that mean I should stay at home, because I'm a potential menace to society?

Morality is not really as malleable as "common sense" dictates, at least not in the way I understand it. But moral behaviour (ethics) can vary from society to society. So, for those who find this case of 30-on-13 immoral, please explain - where specifically is the harm?

Personally though, I would agree on one point - if this man truly loved the girl, he ought to have kept his pants on.

[Grimkill7]

My opinion? F*** it. That is my life policy. What happens will happen and anyone who wants to do something should do it, unless it directly impedes on someone else's desire to do what they themselves want to do. I have followed this philosophy for 5 years and it has served me quite well.

A 13 year old is too young to make this kind of decision? Hilarious. That same 13 year old who was "victimized" because she was "too young" to understand the consequences of her actions, can and will be tried as an adult for murder in a US court of law. She is innocent of all consequence until she picks up that gun right? But hey, society is obviously correct in determining a child's age of sexual consent so it must be correct in determining when a child can rot in a jail cell as well.

Who does it truly hurt? Nobody. Go on, say that the parents are suffering because of what happened. But why is that? Is it because their little girl's innocence has been destroyed forever, or is it maybe because their parents and everyone they've ever come into contact with have damned what happened as "evil" or "immoral"? So whose problem is it, the parent's or society's? Honestly, if this wasn't made into an issue previously and the sex was consensual as claimed, the parents might not have cared outside of the possibility of pregnancy.

Well there's my 2¢. Feel free to be disgusted with it or whatever. I won't mind as long as my "F*** it" policy is in place. It really is a great system.

P.S. Anyone who is saying "Disgusting", "Ewww", or "That's gross" should keep in mind that they probably would have been saying the same things about homosexuality 20 years ago. Nowadays, that opinion would be in the minority. I look forward to seeing you all 20 years from now.

[aka Providence]

Originally Posted by Grimkill7

P.S. Anyone who is saying "Disgusting", "Ewww", or "That's gross" should keep in mind that they probably would have been saying the same things about homosexuality 20 years ago. Nowadays, that opinion would be in the minority. I look forward to seeing you all 20 years from now.

nah. i wasn't born twenty years ago so i don't give a crap about the homosexuality example. now, in twenty years, i'd still say that the relationship is disgusting,;and the only thing that might change my opinion is if it happened to me, or someone close to me.

when it comes down to things, there will be most likely nothing wrong with the situation. but my personality dictates that i be a mean-spirited bastard and hypocrite and say that the pedo-relationship is disgusting, with all my heart.

[Comrade]

Call me old fashioned, but I always believed that both partners were always supposed to be on even level in terms of age +/- 5. That's why whenever I hear of "pairings" where one of the partners (usually man) is more than 6 years older I find myself disagreeing with their "love".

Anyway, back on topic this is nothing but pedophilia. I doubt that the girl really knows what "love" means. It's surprising how easily one can make minors believe in any kind of bullshit.

It doesn't matter what that guy says. A 30 year old man fucking a 13 year old girl is pedophilia, calling it love is just as sick as the "relationship" between them.

P.S. Several years ago there were several incidents about child sexual abuse here in Latvia. Needless to say that almost everyone was really pissed off when this was made known to public. The most surprising thing was that our government actually listened to people and a few of them tried to pass a law that would order all pedophiles to be castrated. Unfortunately this law "froze" in the project phase and I haven't heard about it since then.
If such "medieval" laws existed in Europe, I bet there would be a lot less of these "lovers".

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

...
On this case in particular, I'd first like to ask, what's the legal age of consent in Italy? Secondly, why that age? Is it even possible to measure "emotional maturity" reliably? Because the implicit assumption here is that the girl is not mature enough to know the consequences of her actions. By that yardstick, I'd say that I'm emotionally immature on many issues too, and I'm well past my adolescence. Does that mean I should stay at home, because I'm a potential menace to society?
...

You cannot reverse the age thing on law. Though as an example here in germany from the age 18+ on penalties are according to adult criminal law, it is possible however to judge in special cases according to youth criminal law up to the age of 21. It depends on the social/emotional abilities of the culprit.
But there is, for a reason, an upper limit to that exception, since otherwise that would allow anyone who has an EQ just low enough, to commit crimes and harm people yet being charged with youth criminal laws penalties, that might protect society not enough.
The idea is, that at a certain age, one's EQ must be developed enough to live in this society. If that is not the case, and a crime is commited, adult criminal law is applied to protect society. Of course it is a dilemma to punish the underEQ'ed culprit that way, but in that case the well-being of the society is more important then the well-being of a single individuum.
The interesting thing is, that the opposit and only the opposit does not apply. If one commits a crime in youth age and one's EQ is that of a typical adult, one will still be punished according to youth criminal law.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

...
Morality is not really as malleable as "common sense" dictates, at least not in the way I understand it. But moral behaviour (ethics) can vary from society to society. So, for those who find this case of 30-on-13 immoral, please explain - where specifically is the harm?
...

Noone here has enough inside knowledge in the case to tell you who exactly was harmed in which way.

It is however immoral, because it can lead to a dangerous role model. If someone is young (consciously avoiding to write the number 13 here) and exceptionally gifted with EQ, that is out of the norm. A practiced role model based upon the assumption that the majority behaves socially like a minority is arguably a bad idea. Thats the real concern.
Since a role model should not be fixed on a minority in the society, it is important to not allow these role models. And this case, if often enough repeated could serve as a role model. This coud provide the means to make common practice out of something, that is not good for the majority in a society. Therefore lawmakers define laws with society in mind and a range of applicable punishment. This is the best ethical tradeoff you can have in a society today. Of course this will discriminate minorities, but laws are not perfect. And for that reason, people like judges exist, they have to decide if and how much a law applies. And since humans tend to fail sometimes laws can be enforced badly, but most of the time they will add the ethical component to the rather neutral laws.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

...
Personally though, I would agree on one point - if this man truly loved the girl, he ought to have kept his pants on.

Definitly.

[aka Providence]

anothing thing: if the girl was so mature, then she herself should have chosen to wait until she's friggin' 18.

[WanderingKnight]

Yay for bigotry, fear and misunderstanding.

People, let's agree on something: Love ought to be celebrated, whether you're Christian, Muslim, Scientologist, agnostic, atheist, or simply a human being. Under those circumstances, any consensual love ought to be celebrated.

The only thing that would worry me about this is whether the girl had the proper sexual education in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

anothing thing: if the girl was so mature, then she herself should have chosen to wait until she's friggin' 18.

If she were so mature, I would have expected her to think for herself what she wants for herself, not what the society expects of her.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

The only thing that would worry me about this is whether the girl had the proper sexual education in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Name-calling doesn't really help. We're all bigots in one way or another, whether we realise it or not. I rather choose to respect the views of people who find this particular case disgusting, while trying to probe deeper to see if they can justify their position with good reason. And even if they can't, well, they are free to believe what they want to. We simply agree to disagree.

On the matter of harm to this particular girl, unwanted pregnancy is not the only concern. Another problem is whether she can differentiate lust from love. It is a terrible thing to grow up not knowing the difference between the two emotions.

Originally Posted by Jinto Lin

The idea is, that at a certain age, one's EQ must be developed enough to live in this society. If that is not the case, and a crime is commited, adult criminal law is applied to protect society. Of course it is a dilemma to punish the underEQ'ed culprit that way, but in that case the well-being of the society is more important then the well-being of a single individuum.

I don't disagree, but I question whether you can measure EQ reliably.

Originally Posted by Jinto Lin

It is however immoral, because it can lead to a dangerous role model. If someone is young (consciously avoiding to write the number 13 here) and exceptionally gifted with EQ, that is out of the norm. A practiced role model based upon the assumption that the majority behaves socially like a minority is arguably a bad idea. Thats the real concern.

Explain why this particular girl is a dangerous role model. Then maybe I can tell you whether I agree with you.

[aka Providence]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Yay for bigotry, fear and misunderstanding.

nevertheless, it is at the very least free speech. yay-ness.

i'd celebrate the notion of love though, up to a certain point.

[WanderingKnight]

Name-calling doesn't really help.

Right, but the name-calling on the other side ("sick people", "perverts", etc) irks to no end.

On the matter of harm to this particular girl, unwanted pregnancy is not the only concern. Another problem is whether she can differentiate lust from love. It is a terrible thing to grow up not knowing the difference between the two emotions.

Well, that's entirely subjective. It's up to her to decide whether, as concepts, "lust" and "love" are any different, and whether that difference is of any importance to her. Each person has his or her own concept of "love" and "lust", as you called them. In fact, it'd be better if everyone sought the meaning for themselves, instead of buying a prefabricated concept (which has to do with paying heed to what society expects of you).