142
Is it wrong for 25M to date 19F?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
142 points (86.2% liked)
Asklemmy
44142 readers
1097 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
A good rule of thumb is half your age plus 7.
Indeed. I remember when that was the basic rule.
Also, women mature earlier than men, so at equal maturity it's quite typical for a woman to be 2 years younger than the man. At marriage in the USA, two years is actually the average age gap:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_age_at_first_marriage
Also, you might initially meet at 19/25. Next year you will be 20/26, then 21/28, etc. The age gap will become relatively smaller over time.
This is a stupid rule.
The good rule is to judge people as individuals and respect their autonomy.
I'm talking about general perception. Respecting people as individuals doesn't protect you from being seen as a creep, plus you're arguing for looser restrictions. I encourage you to try the math on that.
I'm perfectly happy with our societies coming to consensus on a general age where one is considered capable of making their own decisions, in this scenario particularly sexually and romantically. I think the age range between 16 and 18 that we have decided on in various western societies sounds reasonable. Our laws respect our autonomy from that point on, yet somehow society is starting to not do that and I don't think that's a good thing, or really very genuine either.
As far as perception, I have a philosophy of not giving a single fuck about perception. People that judge me aren't going to live my life for me, they're not going to come into my life and make me happy, so fuck their opinions. If I'm 40 and find love and happiness with an 18 year old and they don't like it they can kiss my ass.
So are you okay with 18 and 60? 19 and 70?
The larger the maturity gap, the greater the potential for abuse. The rule that I suggested keeps that gap narrow while allowing for accumulated experience.
I don't give a fuck what you do, but it's not a stupid guide.
100% OK with it, yes. We either respect someone's decisions or we don't. If we decide "someone is free to do what they want when they're 18" then that's that. If that's what they choose to do then it's none of my business.
There are plenty of abusive, coercive and controlling relationships between people of the same age range. There are plenty of 40 year old women getting mistreated in new relationships. If a 19 year old is with a 70 year old, I doubt there's some power dynamic there, most likely the woman is selling herself in a situation like that for a big payday, which is her choice. There are way less 70 year olds controlling their 18 year old girlfriends than there are 32 year olds doing it to their 30 year old girlfriends. It would seem age is not a good heuristic when trying to determine whether abuse is occurring, when it comes to adults at least.
You completely respect other people's choices based off of an arbitrary number of majority. You haven't proposed a smarter alternative. You've merely substituted one authoritarian defined arbitrary limit for another.
If my suggestion is stupid, then so is your law.
Personally, I think the number is arbitrary and there are 20 year olds incapable of making responsible decisions, and 15 year olds that are. But that's the world we live in, it's a compromise we make with our community to prevent abuse of little kids, and a way to set expectations of people, "by this age you need to be capable of looking out for yourself or you're going to have a hard time". I'm OK with this particular compromise, arbitrary though it may be. I don't know that there is a smarter alternative, and half your age plus seven is most definitely further from the goal than a set age when someone is expected to be able to navigate the world on their own. In older times (and in some less developed cultures even today), people were expected to be capable at puberty, in others it was when their fathers said they could, and we don't do that anymore because those systems almost always lead to fathers selling their children. So I'm happy with the current rule.
It's a rule of thumb, not a rule of law. It's generally accurate in broad strokes, but not guaranteed at a fine level. Generally, it leads to an imbalance of experiences, but some people have more experiences than their age would suggest or are just fine being seen as a trophy spouse, or any number of reasons it doesn't fit.
Yeah I understand that, but I don't think it's a good rule even generally speaking. It doesn't actually prevent abuse, all it does is disempower people from being autonomous via social stigmatization as a mechanism rather than penalty of law.
Of course it's stupid, it's a joke from xkcd
Nah man this rule predates the internet.