i have a dilemma. thoughts? advice? hear me out?

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse but something just occured to me - along with BobTheMartian's statement that "14=immature" is a strictly North-American phenomenon: Perhaps the reason 14 year olds ARE immature here is because society treats them like children and doesn't allow them any responsibility and expects them to be flakey.
Society's expectations seem to have a lot to do with how people act.

The reason teenagers are so stupid and rebellious is because their instincts tell them they're adults, but they've never been taught to be responsible like one.

I know not everybody matures at the same rate and you can have a very immature 20 yo and a very mature 15 or 16 yo. But there has to be an age where a person is considered mature enough to consent to sexual relationships,

If today we are debating if a 14 yo is mature to consent to sex, maybe later we will wonder if it's ok for a 12 yo, or maybe 10 yo to consent to sex.

Just because a young girl wants to have sex doesn't mean she understands what she's doing. A sexually abused girl that learned that sex is a way to obtain attention or favours, will be more than willing to have sex. Does that mean that it's ok to have sex with her?

I really think the OP is a very nice young man and has good intentions. I also think that he doesn't know how young girls think and how immature they can be despite the fact they look and behave like adults.

As I said before, I've got a 14 yo daughter and I would do anything to keep a 19 yo away from her. When I say 'anything' I don't mean lying to the police, but I would take the decision out of her hands. We are very relaxed parents, we never hit or slap our kids, I very rarelly raise my voice and we don't use punishment. We always talk to our kids when there is a decision to make and we always listen and take into consideration their opinions.

My 14 yo makes decisions for herself (after she discusses them with us),

She is very mature, very focused on her future. We are very proud of her, she is a very nice, carring, polite young lady. When we think that what she wants is not appropriate we negotiate a compromise, she has the chance to explain her position and we present her our concerns. But getting involved with a 19 yo is a big NO-NO.

It is the kind of situation where we would ask him to stop any kind of contact. And I would go to the police if they had sex (and I don't care if she asked or begged for it) or if he will contact her after he was told not to. And this is because she is a child and is very easilly manipulated by an adult. Because she is not mature enough to have an adult relationship and she is not capable to deal with the consequences of an adult relationship.

I have 2 girls but I can tell you that I would probablly react even stronger if my 14 yo son would be the interest of a 19 yo woman. I can sort of understand that men are interested in younger women. I can see how a immature 19 yo man can relate to a mature 14-15 yo girl. I think the relationship is wrong, wrong, wrong, but I can see where it comes from.

But a 19 yo woman that is interested in a relationship with a 14 yo boy, that is something that I can not comprehend. I was married at this age, living away from my parents home, uni student and expecting my first child. I can not see how a women can relate to a 14 yo boy, and I think the relationship is an abuse.

Almost disgusting, I don't understand how fully adult guys would go out with barely teens.

If today we are debating if a 14 yo is mature to consent to sex, maybe later we will wonder if it's ok for a 12 yo, or maybe 10 yo to consent to sex.

Just because a young girl wants to have sex doesn't mean she understands what she's doing. A sexually abused girl that learned that sex is a way to obtain attention or favours, will be more than willing to have sex. Does that mean that it's ok to have sex with her?

By your line of reasoning, I'm still 14. Perhaps that's an accurate assessment...

That basically is saying that she isn't a person, not to be taken seriously, respected, or considered to be in control of her own life or have any rights, and it's still precisely the attitude that I have a problem with. Not everybody grows up fast when they're 'on their own', and not everybody fails to grow up before they're 'on their own'. You can't say that she doesn't know what she wants or can't make reasonable decisions, and you certainly can't say that people in college can do either of those things, because from my experience, they usually still can't.

The reason teenagers are so stupid and rebellious is because their instincts tell them they're adults, but they've never been taught to be responsible like one.

I'm wondering at this point if you would say the same thing if the ages were reversed: that is, if you had a 14-year-old son, and a 19-year-old girl showed interest in him. I'm sure your son would be thrilled beyond belief (I speak as a guy myself), but what would you say about this?

The reason teenagers are so stupid and rebellious is because their instincts tell them they're adults, but....they are not /quote]

That is the debate point in question... Just stating that with the presumption of fact doesn't make it true.



Why? Part of my point was that we should take the opposite stance; that there can't be a single blanket age where somebody magically becomes 'able to consent'.



You say that like it's a bad thing. That's what we should be doing, and eventually the conclusion will be reached that there needs to be a standard that, oh, let's say is actually relevant to the act in question, being able to cognitively understand what one is consenting to. There are tests you can do for this sort of thing, you know. If they're able to demonstrate that they are sentient and are able to articulate that they understand the act in question, then guess what: They are able to consent, regardless of whether society says so or not. To say that they can't is extremely offensive, as if saying that they literally have no mind at all.



I don't see why not. If the girl knows that much about manipulating people already, she sure as hell is mature enough to have the mental capacity to choose to do something at all. Because that's all consent is, a pseudonym for choice. Sex isn't the huge, life-destroying monster that you make it out to be. It's a very simple physical interaction, nothing more. And whether you understand all of the ramifications of anything or not is irrelevant; almost nobody considers any decision they ever make that deeply before doing it. Look at most people who play the lottery. It has nothing to do with someone's cognitive ability to engage in an action; saying that they are literally unable to consent is saying that they do not have free will. Dogs can certainly consent to sex with each other, and in fact do it all the time, and their mental capacities have been measured to be around the equivalent of a 3 year old's.

So while young people might not always be able to completely and exhaustively evaluate all the consequences of a complex action they might take, this says nothing about their ability to willingly engage in it, however ignorant they might be. As well, these ramifications are not nearly as severe as a lot of you heavily socialized parents make it out to be. Tell me, what's the worst thing that can happen? (And don't you dare say pregnancy or STDs, because you know as well as I do that your problem is with the very act itself; that sex even without any other following effects is inherently harmful.)



The reverse also holds true... And the primary operator there is can be. Not are. You can say that it's not worth the risk but statistically she probably is, but what you're making is a blanket statement.



So what you're saying is that you're benevolent dictators... But dictators nonetheless.



That's an oxymoron. What you're really saying is that you let her have input into your decisions about her in order to give the illusion of making her own choices, but when it boils down to it you don't. The decision is still yours.



Why?



Didn't you just say that she was mature? It seems like you just made points there that actually argue against your conclusion. And as for the conclusion itself... I find this notion even more offensive; you're saying that she isn't even capable of having a relationship. That goes further then saying that she can't make good, well-informed, rational decisions yet. What you and many others in this thread have echoed says that these young people don't yet have the mental capacity to make any decisions at all... Good or bad. This is the equivalent of stating that they are not self-aware.



Why, why, why? If you can see where it comes from, then that's basically the equivalent of stating that you don't think it's wrong, at least by the logic you've given. Maybe you should come back when you actually have a 14 year old son and see how you feel then. It's not that hard to understand that most guys are thrilled to have a relationship with *any* woman, older even moreso than younger. Practically every 14 year old guy has the fantasy of being with their mother's hot friend. Simple biology. Not to mention that the social and physical consequences (the only ones) on guys are much less severe than on girls. Praise instead of scorn, and zero risk of pregnancy. Slightly less risk of STDs as well, if I recall correctly. But in this particular case, those risks are also nonexistent, considering the 19 year old in question is a virgin. Chances are more likely that he contracts an STD from her, as I wouldn't be surprised if she's already had a bunch of sex.



Ah... So you attack what you don't understand then. And I thought that trait was an NT thing. Think of it this way, though... If you don't think it likely that a 19 year old girl would have any reason to go after a 14 year old boy, then wouldn't that make it even less likely that the older girl is manipulating him? You can see why a 19 year old guy might want to trick a 14 year old girl into having sex with him, but in this case, it's much more likely that your 14 year old son is the one doing all the impressive work in the relationship. He must be really mature and doing something really good, or, heaven forbid, manipulative, to actually get a 19 year old to go out with him. Society will always assume that it's the guy doing the initiating, regardless of age (unless of course the woman is really ugly), and it will, in fact, commend him for his efforts. Doesn't that double standard seem a little odd to you? How could society possibly be right in its perceptions and the laws based on them if it can believe these two things simultaneously?



It's simple biology, dear Watson. Something you and I and aspies in general have all screwed up. But on a more psychological level, it's because they're not actually 'fully adult'. As has been stated, a lot of aspies have stunted emotional maturity due to the combined factors of their neurological make up and their comparative lack of experience (also due to the neurological makeup). It's also a well known fact that people tend to be most attracted to those of a similar emotional maturity level to themselves. Rant and rave and be shallow about physical appearance all you want, but eventually you'll have to get it through your heads: Whether two people are the same age or not has nothing to do with the difference between the number of years they've been alive. It's about experience, demonstrable knowledge, and complex cognitive processes. If the guy was a hotshot businessman who climbed his way to the cutthroat corporate ladder and is looking for a trophy wife, then yeah, we'd have a point. But we're talking about your standard, lonely aspie guy here.. Which is about as far to the opposite side of that that you can get. I believe I heard a story (from this very forum, possibly) once about an aspie guy that got charged with statutory, but because of his Asperger's it was actually demonstrated in court that he had the emotional maturity level of a minor and hence got off on the rules for two underage people.

We've all agreed that actually engaging in a sexual relationship isn't the best idea; that ship has sailed. But that's not what the argument is about anymore. It's become something much more esoteric; about whether the laws governing this kind of thing are accurate or actually have any basis at all. I still maintain that they do not, and I'm still waiting for somebody to offer any arguments or evidence that back up that claim rather than simply assume it and state it as fact simply because everybody else believes it, skipping over the issue entirely.

Why? Part of my point was that we should take the opposite stance; that there can't be a single blanket age where somebody magically becomes 'able to consent'.

You say that like it's a bad thing. That's what we should be doing, and eventually the conclusion will be reached that there needs to be a standard that, oh, let's say is actually relevant to the act in question, being able to cognitively understand what one is consenting to. There are tests you can do for this sort of thing, you know. If they're able to demonstrate that they are sentient and are able to articulate that they understand the act in question, then guess what: They are able to consent, regardless of whether society says so or not. To say that they can't is extremely offensive, as if saying that they literally have no mind at all.

I don't see why not. If the girl knows that much about manipulating people already, she sure as hell is mature enough to have the mental capacity to choose to do something at all. Because that's all consent is, a pseudonym for choice.

Sex isn't the huge, life-destroying monster that you make it out to be. It's a very simple physical interaction, nothing more.

And whether you understand all of the ramifications of anything or not is irrelevant; almost nobody considers any decision they ever make that deeply before doing it. Look at most people who play the lottery.

Tell me, what's the worst thing that can happen?

So what you're saying is that you're benevolent dictators... But dictators nonetheless.

That's an oxymoron. What you're really saying is that you let her have input into your decisions about her in order to give the illusion of making her own choices, but when it boils down to it you don't. The decision is still yours.

Didn't you just say that she was mature? It seems like you just made points there that actually argue against your conclusion. And as for the conclusion itself... I find this notion even more offensive; you're saying that she isn't even capable of having a relationship. That goes further then saying that she can't make good, well-informed, rational decisions yet. What you and many others in this thread have echoed says that these young people don't yet have the mental capacity to make any decisions at all... Good or bad. This is the equivalent of stating that they are not self-aware.

It's not that hard to understand that most guys are thrilled to have a relationship with *any* woman, older even moreso than younger. Practically every 14 year old guy has the fantasy of being with their mother's hot friend. Simple biology.

... If you don't think it likely that a 19 year old girl would have any reason to go after a 14 year old boy, then wouldn't that make it even less likely that the older girl is manipulating him?

I'm sorry I don't follow?



Not exactly.

A 14yo, or even a newborn baby, is a person and they have every right you and I have. It has nothing to do with adulthood.

However, a 14 year old is not to be taken seriously, nor are they in control of their lives, nor are they respected by the adults, and they most assuredly aren't able to make rational decisions. Kids have much to learn and that is why they are sent to school and why they are stuck in parent's households for 18 years. This is pretty much self evident. Besides the law says they aren't able to consent, and that's all there is to it.