RE minor
roshelle boatman
almost 22...well had his way with me and left me thinking i was preg. The
whole time he was cheeting on me with another girl. My mom recently found
out about us and is pressing charges. I will be 16 in april. I do and i
don't want him in trouble. His freinds and family are all making me look
like the one that did the wrong in this case and him the innocent. I am so
scared of court and don't know how to handle any thing anymore. Within the
last 3 months i have atempted suiced and thought about it constanly mostly
because of him. I still don't understand what i did wrong. His family and
him all would rather see me dead....And sometimes i would to....
Thank you for reading my letter
roshelle
roshelle boatman
Michele,
Right now I am seeing a counselor, and the outlook with court dose not look
very good because he is having a lot of people lie for him. Great start for
the dating game huh?
thanks
Roshelle
PS your e-mail won't work for me
Matthew B. Vincent
"roshelle boatman" <miss...@hotmail.com> writes:
This is a difficult situation to be in, and I feel for you. Whatever the case
may be, it's fairly clear that *you* didn't do anything wrong. There are two
possibilities: (a) neither of you did anything wrong, aside from your
boyfriend being inconsiderate; (b) he did something wrong by taking advantage
of someone younger. Either way, it's not your fault. You probably didn't
especially do anything wrong. His family are just dumping blame on you because
they want to apply pressure in order to save his hide.
I would say that option (b) above seems likely considering that 22-15 is quite
a big gap, and this is consistent with the legal interpretation. I'd have more
sympathy for his case if this was a genuine love for a specific person, who
just happened to be younger. However, from what you've said it sounds more
like he was getting a power trip from taking advantage of someone younger,
rather than having strong romantic feelings for you.
Your question wasn't stupid; it was entirely understandable under the
circumstances. If you're comfortable answering, perhaps you could let us know
how you felt about sex at the time it occurred. You mention that he "had his
way with you", which sounds like he was the more active participant. How do
you feel that things were placed between the two of you in terms of consent?
In any case, rest assured that you've done nothing wrong. This must be hard
for you, but hang in there.
As for suicide, please don't do that. I've considered it also due to abuse
issues, and had to deal with my ex-girlfriend killing herself for similar
reasons. It's just not worth it. There is more to life than doing things for
yourself, and we all have a chance to contribute to the world, whether in a
small or a large way. When it comes to sexual conflicts, things are very messy
in our society currently. However, the despair you feel is a sign that you're
in pain, that our society in general is in pain, and that should be taken as a
sign that we need change. You can work through this and be a part of that
change. That's what gives my life meaning, anyway - telling myself I can still
make a difference. I know what it feels like to be so humiliated I "just want
to die", but really, the literal interpretation of that is not the right
answer. There is nothing to lose in at least trying to make things work out.
Please hang in there.
>Thank you for reading my letter
>roshelle
It was the least I could do. I'm here if you need to talk further, and I'm
sure that others on this newsgroup would be similarly supportive. You can get
through this.
Matthew
Laurie S.
roshelle's post.
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:56:10 +1200, war...@es.co.nz (Matthew B.
Vincent) wrote:
>
>"roshelle boatman" <miss...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>The reson i am asking this stupid question is because my boyfreind, who is
>>almost 22...well had his way with me
First question: What does "had his way with me" mean? Did you or did
you not consent to sex with him?
If you did, even if it was a case of giving in to his requests for
sex, I think it's important for you to accept that you made a decision
to have sex.
This is important not only in accepting the responsibility of what you
agree to, but *also* in discovering how empowering it can be to say
"no" to something that you don't want to do. If teenage girls are
taught that it's their older lover's "fault" if they (the girls) say
"yes", all we're teaching these girls is that they're weak and
helpless.
> and left me thinking i was preg. The
>>whole time he was cheeting on me with another girl.
That's unfortunate. But it's certainly common, among teenagers and
adults, to have "pretend monogamy" while seeing others on the side. I
think that statutory rape charges are sometimes viewed as an
opportunity to get even for things that *frequently* happen with
same-age couples, whether teenage or adult, but with a teen and an
adult, these things are sometimes viewed as criminal.
If you'd had a teenage boyfriend who did those things, nothing would
have come out of it but some misery. If, when you're an adult, you
have a relationship like that, same thing again, whether your lover is
5 or 10 or 20 years older than you.
> My mom recently found
>>out about us and is pressing charges. I will be 16 in april. I do and i
>>don't want him in trouble.
Sounds like a rough dilemma for you. I understand that you feel bitter
over the way you were treated, particularly by the deception your
lover put you through in pretending that your relationship was
exclusive.
But do you want to put him in *prison* for cheating on you? Do you
really feel that you're too young to know any better than to get in a
relationship where you could be hurt? That possibility *never* goes
away.
> His freinds and family are all making me look
>>like the one that did the wrong in this case and him the innocent. I am so
>>scared of court and don't know how to handle any thing anymore. Within the
>>last 3 months i have atempted suiced and thought about it constanly mostly
>>because of him. I still don't understand what i did wrong. His family and
>>him all would rather see me dead....And sometimes i would to....
I'm sorry you've felt suicidal, and I hope you can get past those
feelings. I think therapy would be a good idea, to sort out what
you're feeling.
I don't mean to be unsympathetic toward you in the things I've said
here. I don't think you have done *wrong* ... I think you've been hurt
and don't know what to do about it. Well, sometimes there isn't much
you *can* do about it when you're hurt in a relationship, but move on
and hope for better tomorrows.
I haven't been able to figure out from your post if your mother is
pushing this lawsuit over your objections. If that's the case, I'm
sure it's pretty confusing for you. Sometimes parents, especially
parents of daughters, want to believe that when their teenager has an
older lover, the sex that happens between them is the "fault" of the
older person, when it may have been a quite mutual decision.
A year and a half ago, when my daughter was 13, I told my future
ex-husband that I wouldn't be surprised if she wasn't a virgin anymore
at 16. She reached puberty at 11 and had a womanly figure by 12, and
is very outspoken about sexual matters. At 14-1/2, she's still a
virgin, but she does think and talk about sex.
I've asked her what she thinks about statutory rape laws, and she is
very adamant that a girl her age should have the ability and right to
make sexual decisions with adults, particularly adults in their early
20s.
Again, I'm not trying to be overly critical here. I hold these beliefs
in general, but it doesn't mean I'm unsympathetic to the way you feel.
Laurie
cao...@redsuspenders.com
"roshelle boatman" <miss...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The reson i am asking this stupid question is because my boyfreind, who is
> whole time he was cheeting on me with another girl. My mom recently found
> out about us and is pressing charges. I will be 16 in april. I do and i
> like the one that did the wrong in this case and him the innocent. I am so
> scared of court and don't know how to handle any thing anymore. Within the
> last 3 months i have atempted suiced and thought about it constanly mostly
> because of him. I still don't understand what i did wrong. His family and
> him all would rather see me dead....And sometimes i would to....
Roshelle, this is a perfect example of why you shouldn't get involved with
people a lot older than you are until you are an adult. You didn't do
anything legally wrong, although you might want to examine the sense of your
behavior. The young man did commit a crime. Please get some help for your
depression.
Chris Owens
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Angilion
wrote:
>The reson i am asking this stupid question is because my boyfreind, who is
>almost 22...well had his way with me and left me thinking i was preg. The
>whole time he was cheeting on me with another girl. My mom recently found
>out about us and is pressing charges. I will be 16 in april. I do and i
>don't want him in trouble. His freinds and family are all making me look
>like the one that did the wrong in this case and him the innocent. I am so
>scared of court and don't know how to handle any thing anymore. Within the
>last 3 months i have atempted suiced and thought about it constanly mostly
>because of him. I still don't understand what i did wrong. His family and
>him all would rather see me dead....And sometimes i would to....
>
>Thank you for reading my letter
Shit, things got out of hand for you in a big way, didn't they? I'm not
surprised you don't know how to handle it, especially with so little
experience (your age).
When I was suicidal, one thing (mainly) stopped me; death may be worse. Life
may be utterly shitty, but you can generally improve your life or at least
wait it out for a while for the problems to be resolved if you can't fix them.
It may not seem that way at the time, but it is true. Death may be an
eternity of torment with no chance of improvement. Maybe not a good
reason to live, but it worked for me. My life is pretty good now. Yours
could be in the future.
Okay, so this man is obviously unpleasant, but did he actually *rape* you, i.e.
force you into sex against you will? It isn't at all clear from your posts.
If so, then you have no reason not to want him in trouble. If not, it's a
different matter. He's nasty, but that's not enough reason to destroy his life
by marking him for life as a registered sex offender, known to all and sundry
as a child molestor.
At most, all you did wrong was make an error of judgement in who you
went out with. Most people have done that, myself included (she was
cheating on me with another man).
--
A good pun is its own reword.
roshelle boatman
Thank you all for responding..I needed some support.......If anyone has ICQ
msg me my # is 23359610
thanks
roshelle
Jason Stokes
<war...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>This is a difficult situation to be in, and I feel for you. Whatever
>the case may be, it's fairly clear that *you* didn't do anything
>wrong. There are two possibilities: (a) neither of you did anything
>wrong, aside from your boyfriend being inconsiderate; (b) he did
>something wrong by taking advantage of someone younger. Either way,
>it's not your fault. You probably didn't especially do anything wrong.
>His family are just dumping blame on you because they want to apply
>pressure in order to save his hide.
>
>I would say that option (b) above seems likely considering that 22-15
>is quite a big gap, and this is consistent with the legal
>interpretation.
22-15 is a *big* gap? I knew someone in a 19-15 relationship a couple
of years ago. The guy was an immature 19 and the girl was a mature 15,
and you know what? The parents knew about it, and didn't care.
Amazing what a change of attitude can do for smooth relations between
people. I'm afraid I find the application of "statutory rape" and "age
of consent" laws totally irrational when applied to mature teenagers.
Remember that in more enlightened jurisdictions (eg, Canada) the age of
consent is 14, not 16.
There are a number of questions Roshelle should ask herself. Firstly,
this guy doesn't sound anything special, but I have to question how
this story is any different from the hundreds of infidelities,
two-timings and relationship breakups that happen every day. Women
feel used in those situations too, but we don't feel that it's
something that should involve convictions and *prison*. Should this
guy get convicted, it means, at the very least, severely damaged
employment prospects for the rest of his life. Does Roshelle want to
put him through that?
Secondly, is Roshelle willing to put herself through the trauma of the
court case? Her own sexual history could be questioned, she could be
bullied by the defense, and she is feeling her *own* reputation being
tarnished in lots of people's eyes.
Roshelle, it sounds like you're being pushed into this by other people,
rather than because it's what *you* think will be best. You have some
control over the situation. You could say, "no, I'm not going to put
myself through this, I'm not going to put him through this, I'm going
to get over this cheating bastard and on with my life", and your
parents would have to accept it. In fact, sometimes parents do this
kind of thing to punish their kids for having sex. I really *hate* to
giv armchair advice, I don't usually read talk.rape because it wrenches
my gut like this, and I don't have all the facts, but I honestly don't
like the sound of this and I have to say *something*.
--
Jason Stokes: js...@bluedog.apana.org.au
Avedon Carol
Stokes) wrote:
>In article <warlock.26...@es.co.nz>, Matthew B. Vincent
><war...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>This is a difficult situation to be in, and I feel for you. Whatever
>>the case may be, it's fairly clear that *you* didn't do anything
>>wrong. There are two possibilities: (a) neither of you did anything
>>wrong, aside from your boyfriend being inconsiderate; (b) he did
>>something wrong by taking advantage of someone younger. Either way,
>>it's not your fault. You probably didn't especially do anything wrong.
>>His family are just dumping blame on you because they want to apply
>>pressure in order to save his hide.
>>
>>I would say that option (b) above seems likely considering that 22-15
>>is quite a big gap, and this is consistent with the legal
>>interpretation.
>
>22-15 is a *big* gap?
Yeah, that made /me/ blink. When I was in my mid-teens, we considered
folks up to 25 to be in our peer group. I think that's normal for
anyone who socializes outside of highschool. I don't think I could
have stood being a teenager if I'd had to confine my socializing to
those only a couple of years older than me.
What adults forget is that while, at that age, a few years difference
may seem vast, it is also the case that you've spent most of your life
going to school or playing with other kids who may have been two or
three times your age, you've hung out with the younger and older
siblings of your friends, you've considered people six years older or
younger to be part of your cohort. Your parents make you hang out
with "the kids" at family events even when the age range of "the kids"
may be from toddler-hood to adulthood (because the family tends to
think in generations rather than age and a 16-yr-old isn't necessarily
distinguished in their eyes from a 10-yr-old, and there's virtually no
difference at all to them between, say, six and 10). To
pre-pubescents, even a year or two is a huge difference, but that
changes as you work your way up the scale. So being 15 in the company
of a 22-yr-old is nothing.
>I knew someone in a 19-15 relationship a couple
>of years ago. The guy was an immature 19 and the girl was a mature 15,
>and you know what? The parents knew about it, and didn't care.
>Amazing what a change of attitude can do for smooth relations between
>people. I'm afraid I find the application of "statutory rape" and "age
>of consent" laws totally irrational when applied to mature teenagers.
>Remember that in more enlightened jurisdictions (eg, Canada) the age of
>consent is 14, not 16.
I don't know if they are "more enlightened" (they certainly aren't in
/some/ areas), but certainly no harm seems to have come of the lower
age of consent. Quite the contrary, harm seems to have come from
areas where there are some restrictions on sexual activities involving
people under 18 that do not apply to those over it.
>There are a number of questions Roshelle should ask herself. Firstly,
>this guy doesn't sound anything special, but I have to question how
>this story is any different from the hundreds of infidelities,
>two-timings and relationship breakups that happen every day. Women
>feel used in those situations too, but we don't feel that it's
>something that should involve convictions and *prison*. Should this
>guy get convicted, it means, at the very least, severely damaged
>employment prospects for the rest of his life. Does Roshelle want to
>put him through that?
Good question. People underestimate the emotional investment you may
come to have in an event where you were responsible for severely
affecting someone else's life. Is it worth it to tie yourself to him
this way?
>Secondly, is Roshelle willing to put herself through the trauma of the
>court case? Her own sexual history could be questioned, she could be
>bullied by the defense, and she is feeling her *own* reputation being
>tarnished in lots of people's eyes.
And it's honestly not worth it unless you think something truly
worthwhile can be accomplished by it. What is the up-side of going to
court, assuming a conviction can be achieved?
>Roshelle, it sounds like you're being pushed into this by other people,
>rather than because it's what *you* think will be best. You have some
>control over the situation. You could say, "no, I'm not going to put
>myself through this, I'm not going to put him through this, I'm going
>to get over this cheating bastard and on with my life", and your
>parents would have to accept it. In fact, sometimes parents do this
>kind of thing to punish their kids for having sex. I really *hate* to
>giv armchair advice, I don't usually read talk.rape because it wrenches
>my gut like this, and I don't have all the facts, but I honestly don't
>like the sound of this and I have to say *something*.
And if the case is as you suggest, maybe refusing to involve the
courts is the best way to take control of the situation.
--
A. Carol Feminists Against Censorship
ave...@cix.co.uk http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
"Any sufficiently advanced political correctness is indis-
tinguishable from irony." - Stolen from Jane Hawkins
Note: The reply field lies.
Matthew B. Vincent
Someone wrote:
>>Remember that in more enlightened jurisdictions (eg, Canada) the age of
>>consent is 14, not 16.
Avedon wrote:
>I don't know if they are "more enlightened" (they certainly aren't in
>/some/ areas), but certainly no harm seems to have come of the lower
>age of consent. Quite the contrary, harm seems to have come from
>areas where there are some restrictions on sexual activities involving
>people under 18 that do not apply to those over it.
What kind of restrictions do you mean here? Are you referring to sexual
assault and harassment? I'm a bit confused here.
That's interesting that no harm seems to come from the lower age of consent. I
realise that many people support age of consent laws out of sexual prudery and
repression, and I also want to challenge this. However, I'm also very
concerned about the genuine issue of wanting to protect children from being
exploited. It's hard to find a balance between the two considerations.
A possible interpretation is that there is nothing *innately* wrong with a 14
year old having sex with an adult, but that the age of consent should be
higher due to the current problems in our society. It's so easy for people to
be hurt, when there are so many people out there who look for power over
others in their sexual interactions, due to their own insecurities.
>maybe refusing to involve the
>courts is the best way to take control of the situation.
That's probably what I would do in Rochelle's position. The fact that the
*parents* are the ones pressing charges, rather than listening to her makes
this seem kinda icky.
Matthew
averti
>
> In article <warlock.26...@es.co.nz>, Matthew B. Vincent
> <war...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >This is a difficult situation to be in, and I feel for you. Whatever
> >the case may be, it's fairly clear that *you* didn't do anything
> >wrong. There are two possibilities: (a) neither of you did anything
> >wrong, aside from your boyfriend being inconsiderate; (b) he did
> >something wrong by taking advantage of someone younger. Either way,
> >it's not your fault. You probably didn't especially do anything wrong.
> >His family are just dumping blame on you because they want to apply
> >pressure in order to save his hide.
> >
> >I would say that option (b) above seems likely considering that 22-15
> >is quite a big gap, and this is consistent with the legal
> >interpretation.
>
> of years ago. The guy was an immature 19 and the girl was a mature 15,
> and you know what? The parents knew about it, and didn't care.
I can easily envision that. We, as a society, are in love with
numbers, but too often we use them as yardsticks where they
don't really have inches marked off 8). Laziness? In many cases.
''You can't do so and so because NO 15 YO can do so and so''
is so easy to intone, but it's still a bunch of ''because
I said so'' tricked up as common wisdom or, even worse, THE
Law.
> Amazing what a change of attitude can do for smooth relations between
> people. I'm afraid I find the application of "statutory rape" and "age
> of consent" laws totally irrational when applied to mature teenagers.
> Remember that in more enlightened jurisdictions (eg, Canada) the age of
> consent is 14, not 16.
Somebody once reamrked that the legal age of consent for sex
SHOULD be lower than the age necessary to enter into a business
contract, because that which you give away in sex doesn't
leave you totally impoverished if the deal goes sour 8).
>
> There are a number of questions Roshelle should ask herself. Firstly,
> this guy doesn't sound anything special, but I have to question how
> this story is any different from the hundreds of infidelities,
> two-timings and relationship breakups that happen every day. Women
> feel used in those situations too, but we don't feel that it's
> something that should involve convictions and *prison*. Should this
> guy get convicted, it means, at the very least, severely damaged
> employment prospects for the rest of his life. Does Roshelle want to
> put him through that?
Excellent consideration. In addition to which, how much is revenge
worth? And how long does the ''worth'' last?
>
> Secondly, is Roshelle willing to put herself through the trauma of the
> court case? Her own sexual history could be questioned, she could be
> bullied by the defense, and she is feeling her *own* reputation being
> tarnished in lots of people's eyes.
>
> Roshelle, it sounds like you're being pushed into this by other people,
> rather than because it's what *you* think will be best. You have some
> control over the situation. You could say, "no, I'm not going to put
> myself through this, I'm not going to put him through this, I'm going
> to get over this cheating bastard and on with my life", and your
> parents would have to accept it. In fact, sometimes parents do this
> kind of thing to punish their kids for having sex. I really *hate* to
> giv armchair advice, I don't usually read talk.rape because it wrenches
> my gut like this, and I don't have all the facts, but I honestly don't
> like the sound of this and I have to say *something*.
>
> --
> Jason Stokes: js...@bluedog.apana.org.au
--
Shut up, he explained.
Avedon Carol
Vincent) wrote:
>
>Someone wrote:
>
>>>Remember that in more enlightened jurisdictions (eg, Canada) the age of
>>>consent is 14, not 16.
>
>Avedon wrote:
>
>>I don't know if they are "more enlightened" (they certainly aren't in
>>/some/ areas), but certainly no harm seems to have come of the lower
>>age of consent. Quite the contrary, harm seems to have come from
>>areas where there are some restrictions on sexual activities involving
>>people under 18 that do not apply to those over it.
>
>What kind of restrictions do you mean here? Are you referring to sexual
>assault and harassment? I'm a bit confused here.
As an example, the new-ish child pornography laws in Canada that make
it a crime to depict (in any way) sexual activities involving those
under 18. Technically, the law even makes it illegal for a
14-18-yr-old to write about her own (perfectly legal) sexual
experiences, including masturbation, in her own diary. In practice,
teenagers who have made videos of their own sexual activities have
been prosecuted for possession of "child porn".
Laws relating to commercial sex involving those under 18 have also
caused problems for minors who have accepted gifts from adults they
have sex with.
>That's interesting that no harm seems to come from the lower age of consent. I
>realise that many people support age of consent laws out of sexual prudery and
>repression, and I also want to challenge this. However, I'm also very
>concerned about the genuine issue of wanting to protect children from being
>exploited. It's hard to find a balance between the two considerations.
Most prosecutions here in Britain under AoC laws are of people who are
within three years of the ages of their partners in consensual
relationships. I have seen no evidence that the law actually
/protects/ any young person from exploitation.
Laws specific to abuse by parents and teachers are one thing; laws
that apply solely to age are about controlling young people, not
preventing abuse.
>A possible interpretation is that there is nothing *innately* wrong with a 14
>year old having sex with an adult,
My question is: why does anyone think an inexperienced young person's
ideal sexual partner is another inexperienced young person? Teenagers
are notorious for being out to prove things sexually, so why would you
want your own teenager to be the subject of that sort of experiment?
Why would an adult be an inferior partner?
>but that the age of consent should be
>higher due to the current problems in our society. It's so easy for people to
>be hurt, when there are so many people out there who look for power over
>others in their sexual interactions, due to their own insecurities.
Yeah, but I'm not sure this is a special area where that is concerned.
Most kids experience the worst pressure and manipulation from members
of their own peer group, not from random adults. Parents and
teachers, as I say, are another matter, but other adults are pretty
much irrelevant to kids most of the time and have no particular pull
with them. Your schoolmates can do cause you devestating hurt without
even having sex with you, but sex itself isn't necessarily a cause of
hurt.
A few years ago I read an article by a man in his mid-20s who had just
been dumped by his 14-year-old girlfriend. He told the story of their
relationship and it was obvious that she was /vastly/ more experienced
and sophisticated than he was (and, I reckon, than most women are well
into adulthood). It was hard to get the impression that /he/ was
exploiting /her/. He didn't seem to get much power out of the thing,
either - he fell in love with her and then was abandoned in favor of
an older man. She had some fun on her summer vacation; he was the one
who was hurt.
But that's life - you have relationships, sometimes you get hurt.
Even when you're all grown-ups and no one was being "exploitative" or
dishonest.
>>maybe refusing to involve the
>>courts is the best way to take control of the situation.
>
>That's probably what I would do in Rochelle's position. The fact that the
>*parents* are the ones pressing charges, rather than listening to her makes
>this seem kinda icky.
Yes. I consider it a vital componant of getting control of your own
life and sexuality to detatch your parents from your sexual life as
thoroughly as possible.
Matthew B. Vincent
Matthew wrote:
>>What kind of restrictions do you mean here? Are you referring to sexual
>>assault and harassment? I'm a bit confused here.
Avedon wrote:
>As an example, the new-ish child pornography laws in Canada that make
>it a crime to depict (in any way) sexual activities involving those
>under 18. Technically, the law even makes it illegal for a
>14-18-yr-old to write about her own (perfectly legal) sexual
>experiences, including masturbation, in her own diary. In practice,
>teenagers who have made videos of their own sexual activities have
>been prosecuted for possession of "child porn".
Ouch, that's absurd. It seems that there is quite a lot of sexual repression
in Canada, from what little I've heard of it. Btw, I heard a rumor that
there's a Canadian law which says something like that a woman can claim she's
been raped if she's had two or more beers. I don't believe everything that
anti-feminist men tell me, so can you (Avedon) or someone else reliable verify
this?
>Most prosecutions here in Britain under AoC laws are of people who are
>within three years of the ages of their partners in consensual
>relationships. I have seen no evidence that the law actually
>/protects/ any young person from exploitation.
I think it's despicable that laws are misused like this to impose sexual
repression and control on people. There are many genuine humitarian issues
when it comes to sex and power, and the purpose of the law should be to
prevent harm to others; prosecuting victimless crimes, especially in the area
of sex, detracts from the community's ability to respond to real injustices.
>laws that apply solely to age are about controlling young people, not
>preventing abuse.
Yeah, they do seem to be used that way a lot. A possible humanitarian
alteration to age of consent laws might be something like having the age of
consent = 16, and making it illegal to have sex with a minor if either (a)
there's an age gap over X years (3? 4? 5?) OR if (b) there's clear evidence of
the younger person being exploited by a power differential in a way that
rendered invalid their autonomy and ability to express consent (e.g. thru
fear, domination, etc.) I'm not sure about the exact wording of (b). Another
possibility might be that a minor could consent, as long as they signed a
document to this effect or something similar.
Having said all this, my natural response is to err on the side of safety when
it comes to children and sex. The psychological aspects of sexual repression
are probably best challenged by respecting diversity when it comes to things
which unambiguously provide no risk in humanitarian terms, e.g. same-sex
relations and non-monogamy. Encouraging (or at least allowing) caring sex and
experimentation between similar-age children may also be helpful in this
respect: children are seen as innocent, which would conflict with religious
taboos about sex being bad and dirty. In some ways, two 8 year olds can be
more considerate than your average man and woman who meet at the local bar,
because the children aren't thinking so much about following gender roles,
satisfying their egos, or fitting in with society.
>My question is: why does anyone think an inexperienced young person's
>ideal sexual partner is another inexperienced young person? Teenagers
>are notorious for being out to prove things sexually, so why would you
>want your own teenager to be the subject of that sort of experiment?
>Why would an adult be an inferior partner?
An adult would probably be a *better* partner, in my opinion. It seems that
our society is very focused on "cleansing" sex, and on viewing it as something
done by young people who meet gender-coded standards of (physical and
psychological) attractiveness. However, I've found that caring, mutualistic
relationships are somewhat easier with people who aren't trying to get into
this domain for their egos. For example, I've found that women who are
overweight, or in their 30s (I'm 24) can be better partners in this respect. I
can be myself more rather than feeling like they expect me to prove something.
There seems to be merit in maturity, which I guess is fairly logical, as this
is what happens in life in general.
There was more I was going to say here, but I've forgotten my train of
thought.
>Parents and
>teachers, as I say, are another matter, but other adults are pretty
>much irrelevant to kids most of the time and have no particular pull
>with them.
You might be right, I'm not sure about this one. I was just thinking: when I
was molested, I was much younger, but when I was 14 I was approached by a man
who had this intention. I was very lonely and isolated for most of my
childhood, which is what made me a vulnerable target for multiple offenders.
Pedophiles are good at picking kids like me out - I've heard about that at
conferences.
Anyway, this man talked to me for a while then put his hand on my shoulder at
the end of the conversation, and he gave me his address and told me I could
visit him sometime (I never did). When I told my parents about this, they were
shocked, and pointed out that he was probably hitting on me. I hadn't realised
this at the time (another common symptom of being molested is being
desensitised to cues of it happening later on). After this, I ended up
fantasising about what might happen if I did go and visit him. I never
bothered to in the end, though. My point is that maybe I *was* old enough to
consent in terms of bodily autonomy, and considering my intellectual maturity
at the time. Still, I really don't like these NAMBLA creeps and all that, and
I don't think I'd be comfortable with an AoC below 16 when it comes to the
older person being an adult.
>But that's life - you have relationships, sometimes you get hurt. Even when
>you're all grown-ups and no one was being "exploitative" or dishonest.
Nods. The reward outweighs the risk though *smiles*.
>Yes. I consider it a vital componant of getting control of your own
>life and sexuality to detatch your parents from your sexual life as
>thoroughly as possible.
Nods. Autonomy is very important (obviously) for a person who's been sexually
violated in any way. Having parents, or the police, or anyone else press
charges without consulting you is hardly conducive to regaining control and
feeling like you're putting your life back together. Sometimes, people can
care more about revenge and rough "justice" [sic] in order to restore their
own sense of control, rather than putting the victim's needs first. Sadly, the
former also seems to be the basis for most criminal proceedings in general.
Matthew
Matthew B. Vincent
Matthew wrote:
>Still, I really don't like these NAMBLA creeps and all that, and
>I don't think I'd be comfortable with an AoC below 16 when it comes to the
>older person being an adult.
I just read your (Avedon's) posts below, and I'm feeling a bit regretful about
my pejorative remarks about NAMBLA. Perhaps I was overreacting, and I don't
know very much about them. What age range are they talking about when they say
"boys"?
My comments were based on Kate Millett's remarks that NAMBLA is mainly a bunch
of older men, rather than representing the younger people's interests; and
also on info from conferences on sexual abuse, which describes predatory
attitudes from men towards children. It's a bit like guys at the pub making
sexist and predatory remarks about women, except that age (rather than gender)
is used to determine whether one is the aggressor or recipient/victim. Sex
role is sex rank (to quote Kate Millett's saying). She's my favorite author,
incidentally.
Matthew
ButaSmuvee
vibe in your life .. I see the age as no problem but i see no reason 4 him to
cheat on u and he knew that if he didnt want a relationship with u and jus
wanted to mess around he should have made it clear to u about what he wanted
.He is jus another player that will end up lonley and carrying around a disease
that can't be cured ...Keep ypur head up baby girl .
Avedon Carol
Vincent) wrote:
>
>Matthew wrote:
>
>>Still, I really don't like these NAMBLA creeps and all that, and
>>I don't think I'd be comfortable with an AoC below 16 when it comes to the
>>older person being an adult.
>
>I just read your (Avedon's) posts below, and I'm feeling a bit regretful about
>my pejorative remarks about NAMBLA. Perhaps I was overreacting, and I don't
>know very much about them. What age range are they talking about when they say
>"boys"?
They mean post-pubescent males. (There is a quite firm distinction
between paedophilia and pederasty, and we're talking only about the
latter here.) Some of those boys are just guys who want sexual
experiences with partners who are themselves experienced. Some simply
do not identify with other adolescents and do not see them as likely
sexual partners. Some are genuine gerontophiles - that is, they are
specifically attracted to /much/ older men.
>My comments were based on Kate Millett's remarks that NAMBLA is mainly a bunch
>of older men, rather than representing the younger people's interests; and
>also on info from conferences on sexual abuse, which describes predatory
>attitudes from men towards children. It's a bit like guys at the pub making
>sexist and predatory remarks about women, except that age (rather than gender)
>is used to determine whether one is the aggressor or recipient/victim. Sex
>role is sex rank (to quote Kate Millett's saying). She's my favorite author,
>incidentally.
Well, sometimes Kate writes some good things, and sometimes she
doesn't. When the subject is NAMBLA, almost no one makes any effort
to refrain from distorting the record.
NAMBLA was formed by both adults and adolescents, and those
adolescents contributed considerably to what is today NAMBLA's
standard rhetoric. That's 'cause in those days it was not considered
absurd for teenagers to fight for their rights. While it's true that
that rhetoric can be misused and I have no doubt that some people must
exploit it to influence young people, it was pretty standard analysis
of ageism for the period and was found throughout "The Movement" among
youth liberation activists and feminists as well.
At this late date, nearly every activist group that was formed in the
period of liberationist politics contains mostly older people, because
they've all become greyer without being joined by a new generation of
activists. Youth liberation politics virtually died out as YL
activists got older and stopped having personal concerns related to
childhood and adolescence (e.g., school dress codes, age of consent
issues, etc.). Feminist politics has become overridden by the kind of
protect-the-child blindness that invents "rights" for children that no
adult would ever want imposed on them. NAMBLA seems to be the only
group left that still uses that rhetoric, but that doesn't mean it was
invented merely so old men could get their hands on teenagers' bodies.
And several of today's greying NAMBLA members were in their teens when
they were personally involved in founding NAMBLA. Their concerns were
their own, as young people, not those of older men. Teenagers - gay
and straight, male and female - were demanding sexual autonomy in the
sixties; NAMBLA wasn't saying anything unusual then, but in these
weirdly reactionary times, they are going strongly against the grain.
As to the guys in the pub making predatory remarks, I can't personally
recall any such guys predatorily insisting that I have a right to
control my own sexuality, but Kate's mileage may vary.
Matthew B. Vincent
<snipped informative post about NAMBLA>
>They mean post-pubescent males. (There is a quite firm distinction
>between paedophilia and pederasty, and we're talking only about the
>latter here.)
I don't suppose you could provide any numerical age to where the gap between
children and post-pubescent males lies? I can guess roughly but it would be
good to be exact with this kind of thing.
TIA,
Matthew
Avedon Carol
Well, it varies by a few years from one person to another. I mean,
some people are in puberty as young as eight, others don't really get
there until 14. The same is true with the end of physical adolescence
- you might be there at 14, or you might not hit the final stages 'til
you're 22. And some changes are more visible than others - are we
talking pubic hair, or height, or ejaculation, or what? Different
guys tell different stories.
Avedon Carol
Vincent) wrote:
>>As an example, the new-ish child pornography laws in Canada that make
>>it a crime to depict (in any way) sexual activities involving those
>>under 18. Technically, the law even makes it illegal for a
>>14-18-yr-old to write about her own (perfectly legal) sexual
>>experiences, including masturbation, in her own diary. In practice,
>>teenagers who have made videos of their own sexual activities have
>>been prosecuted for possession of "child porn".
>
>Ouch, that's absurd. It seems that there is quite a lot of sexual repression
>in Canada, from what little I've heard of it. Btw, I heard a rumor that
>there's a Canadian law which says something like that a woman can claim she's
>been raped if she's had two or more beers. I don't believe everything that
>anti-feminist men tell me, so can you (Avedon) or someone else reliable verify
>this?
Two self-proclaimed feminists in Canada appear to have advocated such
a law. I have not heard of many people supporting it, let alone its
having been passed, however.
(Meanwhile, I understand a Canadian judge has freed a defendant in the
last couple of weeks on the grounds that the aforementioned child porn
law is unconstitutional.)
>>Most prosecutions here in Britain under AoC laws are of people who are
>>within three years of the ages of their partners in consensual
>>relationships. I have seen no evidence that the law actually
>>/protects/ any young person from exploitation.
>
>I think it's despicable that laws are misused like this to impose sexual
>repression and control on people. There are many genuine humitarian issues
>when it comes to sex and power, and the purpose of the law should be to
>prevent harm to others; prosecuting victimless crimes, especially in the area
>of sex, detracts from the community's ability to respond to real injustices.
Broad laws are useful when you want to harass people you don't happen
to like. The main victims of the AoC are gay. It should be
remembered that we're talking about guys between 16 and 18, who are
over the /heterosexual/ (and lesbian) age of consent, but to whom a
special AoC is applied because their partners are male.
Another attractive feature of Britain's AoC laws is that they don't
just apply to the adult; a minor "can't consent" in the sense not that
s/he is personally unable to do so, but that the law doesn't /allow/
her/him to do so. So if you had sex with someone of your own free
will and you are under the AoC, you are only a "victim" for the
purposes of your partner's trial, but you are /also/ criminalized
yourself.
This distinguishes the UK AoC law from that of other countries in that
it's more honest about the fact that such laws don't protect minors,
but are meant to control them.
>>laws that apply solely to age are about controlling young people, not
>>preventing abuse.
>
>Yeah, they do seem to be used that way a lot. A possible humanitarian
>alteration to age of consent laws might be something like having the age of
>consent = 16, and making it illegal to have sex with a minor if either (a)
>there's an age gap over X years (3? 4? 5?) OR if (b) there's clear evidence of
>the younger person being exploited by a power differential in a way that
>rendered invalid their autonomy and ability to express consent (e.g. thru
>fear, domination, etc.) I'm not sure about the exact wording of (b). Another
>possibility might be that a minor could consent, as long as they signed a
>document to this effect or something similar.
Once again, I must note that my experience, when I was young, of
dating people who were close to me in age was that they made lousy
partners. My love life took an exponential leap in quality the first
time I dated someone who was 15 years older than I was (he was 40).
(However, let me note for the record that I am /not/ volunteering to
return the favour to inexperienced young men. I'm a selfish bitch and
I like the fact that older guys know more and do more for ya.)
>Having said all this, my natural response is to err on the side of safety when
>it comes to children and sex. The psychological aspects of sexual repression
>are probably best challenged by respecting diversity when it comes to things
>which unambiguously provide no risk in humanitarian terms, e.g. same-sex
>relations and non-monogamy. Encouraging (or at least allowing) caring sex and
>experimentation between similar-age children may also be helpful in this
>respect: children are seen as innocent, which would conflict with religious
>taboos about sex being bad and dirty. In some ways, two 8 year olds can be
>more considerate than your average man and woman who meet at the local bar,
>because the children aren't thinking so much about following gender roles,
>satisfying their egos, or fitting in with society.
Either your memory is faulty or you grew up in a much nicer
neighbourhood than I did. Eight-year-olds /can/ be considerate, but
it's not all that common. Eight-year-olds, in the normal course of
events, can often be far more beastly than adults. They are
"innocent" only to the extent that they don't know how much damage
they are doing. All the rest is sheer ignorance.
Be that as it may, I don't think a little fooling around between kids
that age is a problem. Lots of kids do it and are smart enough not to
let their parents find out. Good for them.
>>My question is: why does anyone think an inexperienced young person's
>>ideal sexual partner is another inexperienced young person? Teenagers
>>are notorious for being out to prove things sexually, so why would you
>>want your own teenager to be the subject of that sort of experiment?
>>Why would an adult be an inferior partner?
>
>An adult would probably be a *better* partner, in my opinion. It seems that
>our society is very focused on "cleansing" sex, and on viewing it as something
>done by young people who meet gender-coded standards of (physical and
>psychological) attractiveness. However, I've found that caring, mutualistic
>relationships are somewhat easier with people who aren't trying to get into
>this domain for their egos.
Exactly! I wish I'd known that 30 years ago, I wouldn't have wasted
so much time.
>>Parents and
>>teachers, as I say, are another matter, but other adults are pretty
>>much irrelevant to kids most of the time and have no particular pull
>>with them.
>
>You might be right, I'm not sure about this one. I was just thinking: when I
>was molested, I was much younger, but when I was 14 I was approached by a man
>who had this intention. I was very lonely and isolated for most of my
>childhood, which is what made me a vulnerable target for multiple offenders.
>Pedophiles are good at picking kids like me out - I've heard about that at
>conferences.
I was once "approached" too, when I was a kid. I just walked away. I
would have found that much harder to do with one of my peers - I
always felt like I should be trying to get along with them. But
strange adults had no pull, so I could just ignore him.
>>But that's life - you have relationships, sometimes you get hurt. Even when
>>you're all grown-ups and no one was being "exploitative" or dishonest.
>
>Nods. The reward outweighs the risk though *smiles*.
On balance, I have to say yes. I don't know whether it would have
improved my life to have a relationship like that when I was, say, 12.
But I know a lot of people who did, and they seem to feel they got a
good deal out of it, so maybe they're right. All I know is that I
have trouble wrapping my mind around it for /me/, as I was then.
>>Yes. I consider it a vital componant of getting control of your own
>>life and sexuality to detatch your parents from your sexual life as
>>thoroughly as possible.
>
>Nods. Autonomy is very important (obviously) for a person who's been sexually
>violated in any way. Having parents, or the police, or anyone else press
>charges without consulting you is hardly conducive to regaining control and
>feeling like you're putting your life back together. Sometimes, people can
>care more about revenge and rough "justice" [sic] in order to restore their
>own sense of control, rather than putting the victim's needs first. Sadly, the
>former also seems to be the basis for most criminal proceedings in general.
This really pisses me off. Nobody owes it to their parents to help
them interfere with their own sex life anyway, but it just really
makes me mad that parents want to /create/ a trauma out of something
that wasn't.
averti
>
> Avedon wrote:
>
> >Well, it varies by a few years from one person to another. I mean,
> >some people are in puberty as young as eight, others don't really get
> >there until 14. The same is true with the end of physical adolescence
> >- you might be there at 14, or you might not hit the final stages 'til
> >you're 22. And some changes are more visible than others - are we
> >talking pubic hair, or height, or ejaculation, or what? Different
> >guys tell different stories.
>
>
> However, I wonder if physical maturity is actually particularly relevant ?
It appears to be, in a discussion of physical ''hazards'' or
reasons to refrain from doing something merely because one
is some certain age.
>I'm
> thinking that the most appropriate basis of AoC laws would be whether the
> younger person feels that s/he is able to participate voluntarily in a
> mutualistic situation,
''Mutualistic?'' 8). I'm adding that to my vocabulary
_immediately_ 8).
The point of the disdain for AoC laws is that the ''feelings''
or beliefs of the supposed victim never ARE taken into
account.
Involuntary participation in a sexual situation--regardless
of age--is already covered in the existing laws.
>rather than being on the receiving end of a power
> differential. Whether or not it's emotionally safe seems to be the issue,
> rather than how much the younger person has the capacity to enjoy it.
>
Right. And who defines ''emotionally safe?'' For teenagers
or anybody else?
> 8-14 does seem awfully young, btw, especially the younger end of that scale.
Yeah, but that's a ''seem'' rather than a position based on
observable reality. (I'm not knocking your idea; 8 is
almost always WAY below the onset of puberty, and _I_ don't
like the sound of that either.)
>
> Matthew
a.
--
''Where is the system terminal?'' he asked disconsolately.
Matthew B. Vincent
>Well, it varies by a few years from one person to another. I mean,
>some people are in puberty as young as eight, others don't really get
>there until 14. The same is true with the end of physical adolescence
>- you might be there at 14, or you might not hit the final stages 'til
>you're 22. And some changes are more visible than others - are we
>talking pubic hair, or height, or ejaculation, or what? Different
>guys tell different stories.
Thanks, that answers my question.
However, I wonder if physical maturity is actually particularly relevant ? I'm
thinking that the most appropriate basis of AoC laws would be whether the
younger person feels that s/he is able to participate voluntarily in a
mutualistic situation, rather than being on the receiving end of a power
differential. Whether or not it's emotionally safe seems to be the issue,
rather than how much the younger person has the capacity to enjoy it.
8-14 does seem awfully young, btw, especially the younger end of that scale.
Matthew
Matthew B. Vincent
Avedon wrote:
>(Meanwhile, I understand a Canadian judge has freed a defendant in the
>last couple of weeks on the grounds that the aforementioned child porn
>law is unconstitutional.)
Good, that's reassuring.
>Broad laws are useful when you want to harass people you don't happen
>to like. The main victims of the AoC are gay. It should be
>remembered that we're talking about guys between 16 and 18, who are
>over the /heterosexual/ (and lesbian) age of consent, but to whom a
>special AoC is applied because their partners are male.
Yeah, that sounds pretty absurd. The law should be gender neutral regarding
AoC. Another interesting thing is that cultural superstitions about male and
female sexual subjectivity can play a part in male-female situations. For
example, when a 14 year old girl dumps her newborn baby in a paddock and
leaves it to die, she's seen as an innocent victim, and her 17yo boyfriend is
charged with unlawful sexual connection with a minor. OTOH, when a 17yo girl
had sex with a 13yo boy who she is babysitting, and gets pregnant, the boy has
to pay child support in spite of being under the AoC (16 in both cases).
>Another attractive feature of Britain's AoC laws is that they don't
>just apply to the adult; a minor "can't consent" in the sense not that
>s/he is personally unable to do so, but that the law doesn't /allow/
>her/him to do so. So if you had sex with someone of your own free
>will and you are under the AoC, you are only a "victim" for the
>purposes of your partner's trial, but you are /also/ criminalized yourself.
Ouch, that is just appalling. The phrase "the girl shall not be charged"
appeared in NZ's laws quite a while ago. A sexist phrase, but at least it's an
improvement on what you described in the previous paragraph.
>This distinguishes the UK AoC law from that of other countries in that
>it's more honest about the fact that such laws don't protect minors,
>but are meant to control them.
That reminds me... Gayle Rubin remarked that restrictions on drinking ages are
also often related to controlling young people's sexuality.
>My love life took an exponential leap in quality the first
>time I dated someone who was 15 years older than I was (he was 40).
I recently dated a woman 10 years older than me, and overweight, and it was a
very caring relationship. We are still friends and possibly more (she lives in
another city).
Matthew
Angilion
>
>Avedon wrote:
[..]
>>Another attractive feature of Britain's AoC laws is that they don't
>>just apply to the adult; a minor "can't consent" in the sense not that
>>s/he is personally unable to do so, but that the law doesn't /allow/
>>her/him to do so. So if you had sex with someone of your own free
>>will and you are under the AoC, you are only a "victim" for the
>>purposes of your partner's trial, but you are /also/ criminalized yourself.
>
>Ouch, that is just appalling. The phrase "the girl shall not be charged"
>appeared in NZ's laws quite a while ago. A sexist phrase, but at least it's an
>improvement on what you described in the previous paragraph.
Why? I think it's worse, not better. Assigning guilt solely on the basis
of sex isn't an improvement on anything IMO.
[..]
Angilion
>Matthew wrote:
>
>>>Ouch, that is just appalling. The phrase "the girl shall not be charged"
>>>appeared in NZ's laws quite a while ago. A sexist phrase, but at least it's an
>>>improvement on what you described in the previous paragraph.
>
>Angilion wrote:
>
>>Why? I think it's worse, not better. Assigning guilt solely on the basis
>>of sex isn't an improvement on anything IMO.
>
>It's an improvement to acknowledge that the *victim* should not be charged,
>rather than the sexually repressive mentality that the law was based on. The
>sexist bit was assuming that the victim would always be female, but this was a
>cultural superstition rather than intentional discrimination against men.
Okay, I can see where you're coming from. I think maybe it's an improvement in
motivation, assuming that the sexism isn't intentional (a big assumption), but
it's not an improvement in effect.
Matthew B. Vincent
>>Ouch, that is just appalling. The phrase "the girl shall not be charged"
>>appeared in NZ's laws quite a while ago. A sexist phrase, but at least it's an
>>improvement on what you described in the previous paragraph.
Angilion wrote:
>Why? I think it's worse, not better. Assigning guilt solely on the basis
>of sex isn't an improvement on anything IMO.
It's an improvement to acknowledge that the *victim* should not be charged,
rather than the sexually repressive mentality that the law was based on. The
sexist bit was assuming that the victim would always be female, but this was a
cultural superstition rather than intentional discrimination against men.
Matthew