From the AP
It seems to me that the distiction between legal age of adulthood is a societal one, and is accepted for the interests of the minor. There is no difference in the attraction that a normal person would feel for someone below the legal age or above.
So it seems obvious that the state is merely attempting to smear Mr. Green, as his lawyer maintains. But I wonder if this position will draw any support.
Come on. You don’t see a huuuuge difference between a 13 year old girl and an 18 year old girl? Because I sure do. Especially when the man in question is 30 years old and above.
And why? Because he says so? Pfah. If it’s not a sex crime on the books, then it’s not a sex crime, period. Do it like any other bigamy case, and then take it up with the legislature if you’ve got a problem with it.
Now is this guy a pervert because of this? I don’t think so. But I think anyone with 30 children has definitely got at least one screw loose.
Presumably it can’t be legal to marry before the age of consent. Presumably, also, there are no laws specifically relating to age differentials in the state concerned. While I’d be worried about the laws which allow this to happen, I think trying to class bigamy as a sex crime is stretching the point.
Weeeellllll…coupla things here. First of all, this makes no sense:
Bigamy is having more than one wife; it’s got nothing to do with how old they are. So to call bigamy a sex crime because of the ages of his particular wives is rediculous. Whether or not marrying 13- and 14-year-olds is a crime in itself is already defined by existing laws. But if there’s a crime there, it isn’t bigamy; it’s statutory rape (but only if he’s having sex with them, which wasn’t addressed in the article). True, bigamy may also be illegal, but it’s not because of anyone’s age. It’s because the guy’s got more spouses than he’s allowed. They could be 43 and 44 years old. How is that a sex crime?
Secondly, does a preference for younger girls make him a pervert? Perhaps socially, but certainly not biologically. Post-pubescent is reproductively viable (even if it isn’t such a good idea until much later), and thus not perverted in that sense.
Sure there are differences between a 13 year old and an 18 year old. But how much difference is there between someone six months under the legal age and six months over? Also, I’m curious (if you don’t mind my asking) what do the differences between a 13 year old and an 18 year old have to do with the man’s age–and especially the “over 30” part? A 13 year old and an 18 year old are as different from each other as they are, regardless of the age of a third person…or so it seems to me. Am I misunderstanding you?
Well, I have to wonder about a 30+ man who is attracted to a 13 year old. I think 18 years is also too young, but there is still a difference. (For one thing, 18 is an adult, legally.) 13 year olds have just barely approached puberty. They are still wet behind the ears, so to speak. 18 year olds, while still pretty wet behind the ears (compared to a 30+ year old) at least have 5 extra years to mature, and that does make a difference.
Not as huge as an 18 year old compared to a 13 year old. But we’re not talking about a girl who is 17 1/2, we’re talking about a 13 or 14 year old.
I guess I don’t find the age thing as strange as most people. After all, the 30+ man was 13 himself, once. Look at the age group that appealed to him then. Granted, they may not be as appealing to him now compared to someone who is his current developmental equal; but it seems reasonable to me that the attraction he felt when he was that age might linger through adulthood. 13 year olds go to school dances, have crushes, even have relationships (if only at a 13yo level). It’s not that they’re too young for these things, only that they approach them from a different perspective than adults. When you get to the 18yo, well…people that age are dating seriously, even marrying. I don’t see how the man being 30ish would invalidate this, and thus I can understand the attraction there as well (if he’s 30, he was also 18 once).
On a personal note, my first girlfriend was barely 14 when we started dating. I was in high school, and found her quite attractive. I’m pushing late 30’s now, but girls that age can still turn my head (although thankfully, nothing else). I might not find them as intellectually stimulating as someone more my age, but they can still look as breathtaking as they ever did; so I don’t find the adult attraction to them as puzzling as the vehemence with which it’s scorned. Abuse of minors should be reviled, but the desire for them makes sense to me.
Yeah, I know. But my question was in response to your apparent skepticism towards izzyR’s contention that the “legal age” differentiation is mostly social, and not really indicative of a profound difference otherwise. People don’t magically become sexually attractive just because the legislature has finally given them permission. I thought that was the point he was making.
OK, I see where you are going here (I think.) It is one thing to admire the youth and beauty of a 13 year old, it is entirely another to wish to have a relationship with them, and to impregnate them. I do find it troubling that a 30+ year old man found no “boundaries” in himself that told him that it wasn’t somehow - well, “right” to marry a 13 year old.
“Attraction”? No, nothing wrong with feeling that basic attraction we all feel towards a beautiful countenance. But it is the actual acting on it that is where it pushes the line. And after all, this Green fellow certainly did act on it, didn’t he?
Sure, granted. And if that was the point he was trying to make, thanks for clarifying it to me.
But they don’t call it a “sex crime” when you merely admire the attractiveness of someone underage. Otherwise, we’d all be felons, wouldn’t we?
I don’t have so much trouble with the idea of desiring a relationship of some type with someone of that age. If that relationship includes impregnating them, however (which it wouldn’t have to), it’s an entirely different story. That would not be a good idea, for many obvious reasons. As for marrying a 13yo being “right”, it used to be a lot more common than it is now. I heard somewhere long ago (how’s that for a cite?) that economic prosperity is the primary reason that society pushes the “acceptable age for marriage” higher and higher. In poor countries/cultures, marrying girls off young gets them out of the house so you don’t have to feed them anymore. Jerry Lee Lewis married a 12yo (I think she was 12, maybe 13) in 1957 when he was 22. That was not uncommon where he was from at the time, nor was the fact she was his second cousin. They stayed married until their divorce in 1970. Also, I believe that according to Islamic law, the onset of menstruation signals a girl’s legitimacy for marriage. So I think the instinctive “rightness” (or lack thereof) is more socioculturally instilled, rather than biologically justified. If I were allowed to marry a 13yo, I sure as heck wouldn’t be having children until she’s at least in her twenties. That still wouldn’t prevent us from having a relationship, though.
Yep, that Green fellow certainly acted on it, all right. The thing that got me about the article, though, was his saying that bigamy is a sex crime because of the ages of his wives. If their ages don’t violate the laws of consent, then the crime cannot be predicated on that. Bigamy has nothing to do with age, which is what the attorney seemed to be saying.
SHHHHHHHHH!!! 
Sure, but since these things are societally instilled, we fall prey to them. And we are products of them. In some societies, it is OK to beat a woman, or to rape her. Certainly nothing acceptable about that here. Neither is it usually acceptable for a 30+ year old man to have any sort of romantic relationship with a 13 year old - in the here and now. And, after all, thinking of how it was in the “olden days” isn’t attractive when we are talking about racism, or sexism, or homophobia. And I don’t particularly find it attractive when it comes to 13 year old brides, either.
No, bigamy isn’t a “sex crime” - it’s only about the number of wives. But, the age of his wives makes me (at least) cast an unfavorable eye upon him, indeed. Frankly, I see him as a horny ol’ creep. And since it would often be considered a “sex crime” for a 30+ year old man to prey on 13 year olds, I do wonder about him. But is it legally viable to charge him with a sex crime? I don’t know. Possibly not.
IIRC, the minimum age for marriage in Utah is 14.
]
It’s not just economic prosperity, it also has to do with the level of education needed in a society and how children are raised. A thirteen year old may be mature enough for marriage in a society where:
1) a thirteen year old girl is expected to be married soon and already knows how to manage a household (whatever that may include in that society) and care for children, since she’s been performing such tasks since she was five,
2} her thirteen year old male counterpart is already learning a trade or working the family farm and
3) neither of them needs any formal education beyond basic literacy.
There may be some groups in the US where the above still apply (the Amish come to mind as a possibilty),but American society on the whole is very different. In my personal experience, I find that it’s not terribly uncommon for a thirteen year old never to have even been home alone. Certainly most thirteen year olds I know have never cooked a meal, done laundry or been solely responsible for the care of a younger child for even a couple of hours, nor have they been nearly educated enough to function as adults.Those thirteen year olds are clearly not prepared to be married.
What exactly does the title of this thread mean, anyway? Puberty doesn’t end with one’s first period, so I highly doubt a 13 or 14 year old is past puberty.
However, I also think that the lawyer is confusing the not-so-great fact that he’s married to children with the meaning of bigamy.
I think what bothers me is that while, physically, she may be mature-if she’s an early bloomer, but mentally and emotionally and intellectually, this girl is not his equal. Why would someone want someone who is probably still naive, and practically a child? Hell, when I was thirteen, I still played with Barbies-no exaggeration.
Marriage at thirteen? Oy vey!
I think the point is that there’s nothing perverted about an adult male finding sexually attractive any female who has reached puberty and developed a woman’s figure. Most 13 and 14 year old girls fit that description. In our society, an adult male would have to be out of his mind to act on his attraction to a 13 or 14 year old girl, but there’s nothing perverted about finding one attractive. What’s perverted is feeling a sexual attraction toward a girl who has not yet reached puberty; to a girl who is still a child and still looks like a child.
I think it is a mistake for the criminal justice system to treat as identical the two very different cases of (a) an adult male having sex with an 8 year old girl and (b) an adult male having sex with a 14 year old girl. However foolish the male in case (b) may be, he has not committed the real and serious crime that the male in case (a) has.
reprise wrote:
If by “age of consent” you mean the age at which you can legally have sex with someone you’re not married to, then I can tell you that this is not the case in California.
California Penal Code section 261.5 makes it illegal to have sex with anybody under age 18, unless you are married to that person. California Family Code section 302 allows a minor of any age to marry, provided parental and court permission are given. So in California, sex with any random 13-year-old is a crime, but sex with your 13-year-old spouse is not.
Incidentally, so as not to lump sexual attraction with teen-agers into the same “pervert bucket” with pedophilia, there is a separate word for it. It’s called ephebophilia, from the Greek ephebus, meaning someone who’d just acquired the age of Citizenship under the ancient Hellenistic government. I prefer to use “ephebophile” to describe someone attracted to people in puberty, and reserve “pedophile” for describing someone who is attracted to people who have not yet reached puberty.
[OffTopic]
Bumpersticker: Polygamy is have one too man wives. Monogamy is the same thing.
[/OffTopic]
Yes it was - thanks from me as well. The purpose of administering a psychosexual evaluation is presumably to determine if and to what extent (or in what way) the person is a sexual deviant. If there is no cause for such in this instance, the only impact will be to lump Mr. Green in a category with sex offenders.
(doreen makes some good points about the reasons for which children are not capable of being married at ages in which they were able in other eras and in other societies. I would add that, beyond the technical skills discussed by doreen, the level of a person’s emotional maturity can itself be affected by societal expectations.)
With regards to tracer’s comment about ephebophilia, I would imagine that this refers to someone who is only attracted to people in puberty, as opposed to someone who is also attracted to people in puberty. Please correct this if it is incorrect.
In that case, the thread is incorrectly titled - my mistake. Sorry.
It’s possible that, if parental consent is given, that such a marriage would be legal (anyone remember when Jerry Lee Lewis married his 14yo cousin (niece?).
I don’t know what the parental consent laws for Utah are, though.