You're going for the "Don't paint with a broad brush" argument. Usually, it's a good one. Here's the problem. Biology. The human brain does not stop developing until a person's mid-twenties. It's the reason people change so much in their early twenties. It's also the reason why people usually begin to move away from black and white thinking into nuanced thinking around the same time. Consequently, teenagers are biologically unable to grasp the intimacies of love in the way adults are. Moreover, frontal-lobe thinking creates an unequal relationship whereby the older person is in a position of power and control in the relationship whether he or she wants to be or does not want to be. It opens up too much opportunity for abuse. It is why a 26 and 36 year old can have a relationship, and except for a few issues such as a possible biological clock concerning procreation or maturing through life experience, there's little else separating them. It is okay because there is no developmental separation.

And, as far as age of consent for marriage is concerned, that's a fallacious argument. Just because a girl could give consent to sex at 12 within marriage doesn't mean most were married. For instance, at the end of the 16th century in England, the average age of marriage for women was 25 and men, 27, and continued to rise for women for the next fifty years until it hit 26 years old for women. While there are examples of lower (mid to late teens) in other places, those too rose through the centuries. In fact, usually, it was only royalty and those of the aristocracy that married really young for reasons of solidarity and alliance.

The closest you might find to what you're looking for is the Greek Pederasty system whereby a young boy would be taken under the wing of an older man who was not related and shown the ropes of society. Often, though by no means always, this relationship was also sexual. However, there are also Greek stories of fathers going after the men for doing this very thing, so even there it wasn't universally accepted.

 

Thank you. I was wondering how offensive I could get here.

Listen here, you autistic cock-choking snob. I'll argue whatever I want. You can choose not to reply. But you're just the kind of person who can't not have the final say, aren't you? I know your type. Do you feel uncomfortable someone is not agreeing with you? Do you wish only people who conform to your views frequented this place? Do you wish this was your personal hug-box? Well, too bad for you because registration is not closed. You've bosted of your life experience, yet here you are talking like a spoiled child because someone is speaking up with different views. I'm always arguing the opposite point? Yes, what of it? Is it against the rules? Are there a general set of opinions the members must conform to? Again, if you can't handle arguing, just don't fucking reply. No one is forcing you.

 

I don't know what to tell you if you think this place is a hug box.

The question was if a relationship between a boy in his mid teens and a woman in her early twenties was morally wrong. Now, I thought this was pretty self evident but apparently there are fuckwits in the world who think that this situation is unremarkable. @Sorrows already made the point, but given that you immediately started throwing around accusations of hurt feelings before a pivot to Harry's hairless arse, I'll make it again. I want you to imagine a 22 year old policeman dating a 15 year old girl. You've got the double whammy of a maturity and authority imbalance, leading to a skewed and unhealthy relationship. If you try to say you view it the same as the 22 year old female Auror and the 15 year old school boy I'll show you a liar.

Ignorant manchildren like you are why people just shrug and move on when a female teacher is caught 'having relations' (funny how no one wants to say the 'm' word when it's the other way round) with a male student, because he got his dick wet so he should be ecstatic, right?!?

I just wanted to keep making bad masturbation jokes, but apparently that's asking for far too much.

 

Joe's Nemesis made a valid point to which I concede to, but your is just the same that was being said. You're already assuming something bad will happen, and my whole point is that it's not a certainty that it will.

As regarding the accusation, I have only so far raised the tone with Zombie. But it's okay, I think it's pretty funny retards like you can't catch a joke in this website and always resort to this level of autism. Usually, I just upvote your posts and let you go with a private laugh, but this time I'll point it out that you are so self-centred and egocentric you can't possibly imagine someone is not taking you that seriously. Makes one wonder who is really the manchild here.

 

If you've been trying to make jokes I've got bad news for you. You're shit at it.

I can't recall accusing you of anything remotely related to your 'tone'. I called you an ignorant manchild because you seem to think that a thirteen year old getting it on with an adult is just dandy. It's not, and if you're going to try argue that point with any seriousness I can only assume you're a right proper dumb cunt. Before now, every post of mine in this thread was a masturbation joke, and you think I'm sore about not being taken seriously? Bitch please.

 

I was serious where I needed to be and made a (bad) joke where I a joke was called (Yes, of course I read Oz's self-declaration of masculinity before posting that). I argued the point with seriousness and got serious answers, but along the way some people found an approach though calling names was more appropriate. I'll say to you what I said to Sesc: I won't just take whatever you guys dish. If you think I'm an ignorant manchild for having that opinion, that is your right, but if you voice that don't expect me to just be silent.

 

Maybe something bad won't happen, maybe said couple could work, but there are plenty of reasons already cited here, like neurological development and life experience, that makes the setup tip heavily towards an abusive relationship. The issue isn't knowing for certain that 'bad things' will happen, but taking a risk even though there's evidence stating that, most of the time, it won't be a healthy relationship. Kids and teenagers are especially vulnerable and yeah, they should be protected, even from themselves, in certain decisions. This is one of them.

Also, stop with the jokes dude. Seriously. If you have to explain them, you're doing it wrong.

 

But I didn't explain anything...?

 

Fuck off.

Edit: I wasn't even involved in this discussion. If you don't like to think and be challenged that's your choice.

@TheLazyReader Chill a bit. You're coming off quite abrasive. Cussing and screaming solves nothing.

 

Ahh, so, it's true, context is everything.
----------------------------
There, thread derailed. Hopefully we can close it now.

 

H-He started it, mom!

 

I don't even understand why there is a discussion on this.

Anyone who can remember being a teenager or has ever significantly interacted with them can tell you they shouldn't be allowed to have relationships with people significantly older - they're immature, inexperienced idiots for the most part. The only reason we let them do so at eighteen is because that's the point at which we've decided they're on average developed enough to have basic autonomy - plenty of people in their late teens and early twenties are still immature and not suited for healthy relationships, but we have to give people freedom to do what they want and gain experiences at some point. It's just that younger teens are, on average, even worse at it, to the point of it posing a danger to them.

Did I want to fuck an older woman at 13? Fuck yeah I did. Should I have been allowed to? Fuck no. No one who's old enough to remember being that young and stupid will reasonably think its a good idea for those kinds of relationships to exist or be allowed.

 

Firstly, firmly agree.

That said, I'm curious about the historical relevancy. For centuries, most were married before 20. While obviously the reasons were due to dying at an earlier age and a need for children (not to mention the power men held at the time), I am curious about those relationships. Were teenagers just as immature and idiotic? Were they more capable of relationships due to higher maturity levels at that time?

 

You'd probably need some sort of sociological historian to answer this with full academic scrutiny but a few reasons jump out at me:

• Much higher mortality rates and much lower length of life. The high chance that 1/3 or more of children would die before reaching adulthood of disease or the like meant that producing children immediately was ideal - and for this reason it was almost exclusively older men marrying younger, fertile brides.
• Dramatically lower agricultural yield. Much higher proportions of the population had to work the fields and produce food. Agricultural output increases with the number of bodies to work the fields, thus rural populations try to maximize the number of children, combine with the point above about producing children younger.
• Society tended to be less "sheltered" compared to today. This is a good thing for the most part - children of the same age would've had to deal with a far more significant amount of death, beatings, general trauma, etc. and were expected to contribute to the labor force as soon as they were able. Today we recognize the damage and negative influence of a lot of these things, but its generally accepted that in older societies that people were considered "mature" earlier and we didn't care as much about their emotional and mental development. Biologically they would have been about the same, but they would've had more "adult" experiences at a younger age, which can be considered a form of maturity.
  
  Basically it's a combination of practical needs and a general disregard for the extended development and assorted needs we consider important for non-adults today.

 

Somebody didn't read previous posts.

The idea that most married before twenty is a myth. As I noted before, the average age in England for woman was 25 at the end of the fifteenth century and rose to 26 by the middle of the next century.

 

Mostly skimmed.

But it depends on era and location. The Gratian canon law had lower age limit of 12.

If my memory is right, Italy also has lower aged marriages.

Not considering Biblical times...