Lolita love affair scandalises Italy

[raikage]

Dammit... looks like I caught the tail end of this thread and likely no one cares what I have to say.

By and large, teenagers do not have the emotional intelligence/understanding of a thirty year old. Their reasoning abilities are not finished, and not on par with an adult. Developmental psychology tells us this.

Someone is getting hurt by the two being involved in a relationship -- the thirteen-year old girl. Perhaps not now, but her emotional development will be... somewhat altered.

The typical thirty year old is smarter than the typical thirteen year old. He will know what buttons to push to get the results he wants. Children and younger teens are not 'little adults' and should not be treated as such. I would wager that she is being emotionally manipulated by the older man.

Are there exceptions? Yes, there always are. You can find mature children and teenagers, and you can find immature adults. But laws are not created for the exceptions (well, criminal laws aren't. Civil laws can be).

Without knowing more about these particular people... well, I wouldn't jump the gun and say "This is one of those exceptions!" Statistically, it won't be.

The thirty year old claimed to fall in love after engaging in sexual intercourse. Not before.

And if this were in the USA (since differing age of consent was brought up), and we were talking a 30 year old and a 17.95 year old, I would say the exact same thing. Going off the majority of 30 year olds and the majority of 17 year olds, that 30 year old knows how to manipulate the 17 year old into doing what he wants.

Vexx: You mentioned (IIRC) a 13 year old and a 30 year old being married, in terms of a relatively agrarian and remote community. Is such a thing possible, and accepted? Yes. But we're not exactly talking about love here, are we? From what I remember, you mentioned combining family resources, and the girl popping out what will be more farmhands in 8-10 years. That doesn't sound like a relationship between two people in love, but rather a marriage more like a business contract.

And that's not the scenario we're talking about in Italy, does it?

[Gemstar]

Why don't you guys think of it like this when she's Eighteen and that guy is thirty six then it would be totally legal just six years in advance.......what's the fuggin difference !?

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by Gemstar

Why don't you guys think of it like this when she's Eighteen and that guy is thirty six then it would be totally legal just six years in advance.......what's the fuggin difference !?

The difference is that she's NOT 18. Duh, that's what this whole discussion (or rather debate) has been about.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by raikage

Dammit... looks like I caught the tail end of this thread and likely no one cares what I have to say.

By and large, teenagers do not have the emotional intelligence/understanding of a thirty year old. Their reasoning abilities are not finished, and not on par with an adult. Developmental psychology tells us this.

Someone is getting hurt by the two being involved in a relationship -- the thirteen-year old girl. Perhaps not now, but her emotional development will be... somewhat altered.

The typical thirty year old is smarter than the typical thirteen year old. He will know what buttons to push to get the results he wants. Children and younger teens are not 'little adults' and should not be treated as such. I would wager that she is being emotionally manipulated by the older man.

Are there exceptions? Yes, there always are. You can find mature children and teenagers, and you can find immature adults. But laws are not created for the exceptions (well, criminal laws aren't. Civil laws can be).

Without knowing more about these particular people... well, I wouldn't jump the gun and say "This is one of those exceptions!" Statistically, it won't be.

The thirty year old claimed to fall in love after engaging in sexual intercourse. Not before.

And if this were in the USA (since differing age of consent was brought up), and we were talking a 30 year old and a 17.95 year old, I would say the exact same thing. Going off the majority of 30 year olds and the majority of 17 year olds, that 30 year old knows how to manipulate the 17 year old into doing what he wants.

Vexx: You mentioned (IIRC) a 13 year old and a 30 year old being married, in terms of a relatively agrarian and remote community. Is such a thing possible, and accepted? Yes. But we're not exactly talking about love here, are we? From what I remember, you mentioned combining family resources, and the girl popping out what will be more farmhands in 8-10 years. That doesn't sound like a relationship between two people in love, but rather a marriage more like a business contract.

And that's not the scenario we're talking about in Italy, does it?

Don't worry, Raikage. *I* care ... good points. I'm too sleepy to dig around but I'm not sure anyone else made them in that specific package presentation.

Such marriages were quite the norm in the industrialized world until the middle of the 20th Century. Anyone remember Jerry Lee Lewis (1950's rock star) marrying his 14 yr old cousin? It wasn't abnormal where he was from -- it was just the city slickers getting their hosiery all bunched up

Now in the US... its quite rare anymore and most people raise an eyebrow about the girl's choice in the matter at 13 (for some reason 14 magically gets a pass in some areas). Now in the Rest of The World (this is the Internet after all) --- 13 is still quite often a marriageable age in rural, nomadic, agrarian, tribal areas. Sometimes the girl is fine with it, sometimes not. The more caring families try to make sure the girl gets a man she can like or lets her select among eligibles (who meet the financial requirements). The less caring families... they just don't care and I'd be fine sending them to whatever hell scares the crap out of them

Romantic love is a luxury faddy thing amongst the privileged classes. Marriages throughout history are combinations of practicality and compatibility. "love" ... if it exists, is more a combination of trust and respect built over time that sometimes blossoms ... a "partnership" which may be deeper than that "rushy feeling". I've fallen in and out of love with my petite queen many times over the last .... um, well we started dating at 17. I've always respected her and made the partnership work. That's a whole separate topic though.

As for the developmental psychology, I've often wondered if the stages held true in the past - when people simply grew up faster... or if they were compressed as well. I often remind myself that George Washington was *21* when he was General George Washington. That Joan of Arc never saw *20* despite her leadership command skills, etc etc. Most of their armies.... 13-19yrs. Men and women routinely married in ther early teens -- and were adults. Period.

Social taboos and values evolve over time - believing they're somehow cast in stone or setting fire to people who look for reason in them -- that's anti-rationalism and back to darkness.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I've fallen in and out of love with my petite queen many times over the last .... um, well we started dating at 17. I've always respected her and made the partnership work. That's a whole separate topic though.

Wow! That's really something - I've seen you mention your wife a few times in various posts, but to think it started at 17...

That's really the brunt of this comment, but I'll remark on some more below:

As for the developmental psychology, I've often wondered if the stages held true in the past - when people simply grew up faster... or if they were compressed as well. I often remind myself that George Washington was *21* when he was General George Washington. That Joan of Arc never saw *20* despite her leadership command skills, etc etc. Most of their armies.... 13-19yrs. Men and women routinely married in ther early teens -- and were adults. Period.

I think it's difficult to tell, purely due to different circumstances. People now seem to be raised in such a manner that they don't feel responsible for their actions. Your family will support you until you can support yourself (indefinitely), and even on the off-chance that they do throw you out you can perhaps commit a crime that lands you in jail. At worst, hey, your meals are paid for! There's no real risk of death or major consequence. Perhaps it also has to do with the fact that society has become so materialistic and self-absorbed.

I don't know what psychology says about this, but I've noticed it within myself and others that you rise to challenges. If you realize that something is serious business, your attitude changes and you perform differently. Similarly, if something isn't all that serious, we'd be more prone to goofing around. The idea that children should have a childhood (developed relatively shortly after the industrial revolution, if I remember right) probably initiated this idea. Children no longer worked to support the family, but spent their time bettering themselves and playing. It's a nice idea, but it gets them used to relying on someone else.

If they are raised in an environment where everyone is contributing, and they too are contributing, I'm sure that their outlook on life would be much more serious. At that point, their mentality would more or less match that of an adult. The only difference between the two would be life experience and maybe sophistication.

[Anh_Minh]

I think it has to do with the lengthening of education.

Even just a few decades ago, it was rare for kids to go to high school, let alone college. They were considered ready to strike out for themselves in their mid-to-late teens, and at that point they were, for all practical purposes, "adults".

[FatPianoBoy]

So we can agree that maturity is rooted in rearing and not biology? To an extent, at least.

[aka Providence]

Originally Posted by FatPianoBoy

So we can agree that maturity is rooted in rearing and not biology? To an extent, at least.

yes. and, at the very least, could we agree that there should be an age limit and it must be upheld; meaning that anything that goes against that, which may or may not be disgusting, is wrong?

[Vexx]

Aye on the maturity connected to rearing (though the "disgusting" is just emotional tagging again), the only real *PHYSICAL* brain operative difference I can think of is the "which water glass has more" experiment and that happens well before age 10. All the other phases are fuzzy at the edges and therefore I surmise they could be compressed depending on the demands of the environment. The current environment is making maturity and independence more and more difficult to achieve.

The maturity comments and the delay onset of responsibility makes me even more aggravated that the public schools in my country don't have community and personal service philosophy built-in from day one and that parents aren't an integrated part of the process (yeah, fails on both sides caused that, different topic).

For purposes of assuring no one is being misused, I'd agree that an age limit(s) should be used by the legal system for establishing when certain privileges and responsibilities are opened, but one developed by taking social, psychological, and medical "state-of-the-knowledge" into account. Not a crowd of "Think of the Children" raving loonies any more than a tribal elders only interested in the cattle value of your little girl

Its in everyone's interests to educate themselves on any subject being discussed *and* how to present their view or proposal with supporting data that survives scrutiny. (note the "survives scrutiny" part.... thinking of one example in another discussion that required counting anyone under 25 as a "child" to create a misleading statistic).

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by aka Providence

yes. and, at the very least, could we agree that there should be an age limit and it must be upheld; meaning that anything that goes against that, which may or may not be disgusting, is wrong?

I don't think so. I agree with the concept that it would be appropriate under certain environments and not appropriate under others. Thus, you can't define a universal age restriction, and because it would be acceptable in certain instances you also can't call it "disgusting" in any instance. (I believe WanderingKnight's statements would also argue that not everyone is at the same place at a certain age, and you could have someone people who were ready for a relationship at one age while others weren't. That further nullifies the usefulness of a universal age restriction.)

Originally Posted by Vexx

Aye on the maturity connected to rearing, the only real *PHYSICAL* brain operative difference I can think of is the "which water glass has more" experiment and that happens well before age 10. All the other phases are fuzzy at the edges and therefore I surmise they could be compressed depending on the demands of the environment. The current environment is making maturity and independence more and more difficult to achieve.

The biology of it is connected to rearing and environment, in many instances. I have two points of interest.

First, it is well-known that humans who are not scolded and punished for poor behavior as children will have very poor self-control as adults. The reason for this is that a lot of emotional outbursts are derived from one part of the brain (if I remember my neuroscience right this is primarily from the amygdala, for those interested in neuroscience). All of us experience these bursts of activity, but as stable adults our brain is able to control the impulses (I'm probably going to botch this one in my memory, but I think that the area of the brain that helps to counter the amygdala is primarily the hypothalamus). The amygdala is heavily associated with primal survival instincts and for a child it is one of the stronger parts of the brain - a young child can't control themselves because their brain isn't wired to. If they aren't instructed to control themselves, their brains never develop the wiring necessary to control the impulses from the amygdala. (Further interesting, while trying to find out what the counter to the amygdala really is, I ran across an article called Amygdala enlargement in dysthymia—a volumetric study of patients with temporal lobe epilepsy by Ludger Tebartz van Elst, Friedrich G. Woermanna, Louis Lemieuxa, and Michael R. Trimblea. Here's the conclusion:)

Conclusions: This is the second report of a relationship between amygdala volumes and depressed mood, confirming an earlier finding in patients with bipolar disease, and the first study reporting a correlation between amygdala volumes and depression. Increased processing of emotional information might increase amygdala blood flow and subsequently, result in amygdala enlargement.

The second point that I wanted to bring up takes place in elephants. Briefly, elephants live in herds, but the males are kicked out of the herd when they reach puberty. Male elephants cluster together and form their own herds. Elephants go through a period known as "must" where their testosterone spikes. During these periods of time, their aggression and recklessness increases drastically (note that this behavior, associated with testosterone, is not unique to elephants). It was found that the older bulls will counter the younger, hormone-crazed males and thereby keep their hormone levels in check. The elephants eventually learn how to keep their hormone levels steady, themselves. This was partly discovered due to mass violence by elephants in a preserve in Africa, who were killing many people. The older elephants had all been killed off by poaching, and without any older males to keep their hormones in check, the elephants went wild. Once older bulls were added to the herd, the violence subsided.

Biology has a lot to do with the behaviors and functioning, but biology is very closely linked to environmental factors, as well.

[Anh_Minh]

Well, I'd argue that "disgusting" is a feeling. To call it "personal" would be redundant, and anything can be disgusting. To me, regardless of circumstances, the idea of sex with 13 years old is pretty disgusting. So are spinach, and reality TV.

The thing is to distinguish "disgusting" and "should be illegal".

[Vexx]

Heh, no arguments at all with that observation.

@Ledgem: reminds me of the "mastodon hunt" fable I like to use (or maybe Lord of the Flies as performed by elephant). You take the young teens out on their first mastodon hunt. The ones who zone out.. get eaten by the tigers. The ones who can't play on a team well... get stomped by the mastodons. The bullies... get their innards handed to them during the "can't play well with others" phase.

[raikage]

Originally Posted by Gemstar

Why don't you guys think of it like this when she's Eighteen and that guy is thirty six then it would be totally legal just six years in advance.......what's the fuggin difference !?

Yeah!

And when she was eight the guy was 20... what's the difference?

Originally Posted by Vexx

As for the developmental psychology, I've often wondered if the stages held true in the past - when people simply grew up faster... or if they were compressed as well. I often remind myself that George Washington was *21* when he was General George Washington. That Joan of Arc never saw *20* despite her leadership command skills, etc etc. Most of their armies.... 13-19yrs. Men and women routinely married in ther early teens -- and were adults. Period.

Joan of Arc heard voices telling her what to do. She was likely schizo.

George Washington -- we can make inferences based on his mental abilities and how he could see a battlefield, but that doesn't necessarily translate into emotional maturity.

Battle generalship is more akin to chess, which is mental and not emotional.

To repeat an earlier point, neuroscience and developmental psychobiology tell us that a teenage brain is different from an adult brain. The frontal lobe, which influences (among other things) judgment and emotional control is not as developed.

So, unless the biology of human beings has changed...

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I don't think so. I agree with the concept that it would be appropriate under certain environments and not appropriate under others. Thus, you can't define a universal age restriction, and because it would be acceptable in certain instances you also can't call it "disgusting" in any instance. (I believe WanderingKnight's statements would also argue that not everyone is at the same place at a certain age, and you could have someone people who were ready for a relationship at one age while others weren't. That further nullifies the usefulness of a universal age restriction.)

I disagree. Again, laws are made with the majority in mind.
- Killing someone is illegal.
- There are times when killing someone (usually self defense or home defense) is justified.

Therefore... we toss out that law, because there are times when the action is justified?

You can make something illegal, and then deal with the violations one by one. Some will be pardoned, some will not.

Universal age restrictions work because they apply to almost all.
And there is a simple way to get around not being old enough -- wait.

[Demongod86]

Originally Posted by Tripfag

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../witaly107.xml



I'm smiling, cheering, and facepalming harder than I ever have at this article.

Look out, LOLIS!

[Vexx]

Moving on...

Sorry, Raikage ... lets examine,

Originally Posted by raikage

Joan of Arc heard voices telling her what to do. She was likely schizo.

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.

George Washington -- we can make inferences based on his mental abilities and how he could see a battlefield, but that doesn't necessarily translate into emotional maturity.

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"?

Battle generalship is more akin to chess, which is mental and not emotional.

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".

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.

To repeat an earlier point, neuroscience and developmental psychobiology tell us that a teenage brain is different from an adult brain. The frontal lobe, which influences (among other things) judgment and emotional control is not as developed.

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).

So, unless the biology of human beings has changed...

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.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by raikage

I disagree. Again, laws are made with the majority in mind.
- Killing someone is illegal.
- There are times when killing someone (usually self defense or home defense) is justified.

Therefore... we toss out that law, because there are times when the action is justified?

You can make something illegal, and then deal with the violations one by one. Some will be pardoned, some will not.

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

Universal age restrictions work because they apply to almost all.
And there is a simple way to get around not being old enough -- wait.

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.

[whitewater_81]

meh...perfectly normal...

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by raikage

I disagree. Again, laws are made with the majority in mind.
- Killing someone is illegal.
- There are times when killing someone (usually self defense or home defense) is justified.

Therefore... we toss out that law, because there are times when the action is justified?

Just to clarify, I wasn't speaking about laws when I wrote that. I was specifically responding to aka Providence's statement that something like this could be considered disgusting (although re-reading it, I see that I focused more on that and less on the "may or may not be") and "wrong." There's a difference between wrong and illegal, and saying that something is universally wrong gets a lot more difficult.

As you say, laws are made with the majority in mind. If we want to discuss a legal age limit, I'm perfectly fine with having an age of consent at 18 for my society (western, developed). If we want to say "at what age could we say that this is universally wrong" - I still don't think we can. As I said before, it makes sense under certain circumsances and it doesn't under others, but because of the former it can't be considered wrong in general.

[Cyz]

"Age doesn't matter if you're talking about love" or so they say. I'd like to agree but that usually doesn't work in real world's standards. Hm, I guess Italian government decided to give it a consideration since the 13 year old admitted being in love. Oh what future will await for them two no?

[FatPianoBoy]

Originally Posted by Cyz

"Age doesn't matter if you're talking about love" or so they say. I'd like to agree but that usually doesn't work in real world's standards.

I prefer to think that age doesn't matter if you're talking about love, but it does matter if you're talking about consummation. I'd advise against that until you're in a position to start a family.