Is 23 and 16 wrong?

[PhunkSpunk]

I was talking with a guy the other night who told me his 'first' was the 23 year old ex-Marine who lived down the block from him. He was 16 at the time. They struck up an acquaintance at the local gym, started training together, and I think were taking the same class at the local community college. He said that he had started to have a crush on the marine, which disturbed him because up until then he thought he was straight. The marine'd been in Iraq, seemed like a real hero to him, etc, and apparently was very good looking. Then one day it just sorta happened. No real seduction or anything, though it turns out the marine was gay. Sounded like these guys spent a couple of weeks attached at the hips, and then the marine called it off, saying it was too weird being with a guy who was still in high school.

Just was wondering what you guys think? Was the age/experience differential too great? Normally, I find the whole 'daddy/son' dynamic revolting, but this situation doesn't sound anywhere near as bad.

 

[Wtrain]

The law may say it's not wrong, but the maturity level between a 16 year old and a 23 year old is very different.

 

[MrWright]

Your profile says you live in Massachusetts. If that's the case I believe the age of consent in Mass is 16. So both were consenting adults, so no I don't think it's wrong.

Ahah! This argument again...and it's fallacious.

It assumes that law and morality are necessarily connected and constitutes an ethical grey zone (this I borrow from Giorgio Agamben) where one can evade possible larger moralities through law (law thus replaces morality).

For example, look to the Nuremburg trials: Nazis regularly sited their actions as wrong to god but not wrong to man as they weren't illegal making judgment against them post facto.

Soooo...the point is that just because Massachusetts views 23 year olds having sex with 16 year olds as legal doesn't make it ok (and anyway I'd have to check the veracity of this as most states have a 16 year old consent but the person must be no more than 3 years their senior - officially it's also illegal in most states for two people under 16...say 15 and 15...to have sex). So it probably isn't legally ok even.

The question then becomes: do you think 23 year olds having sex with 16 year olds is ok? (I'm more subjective)

 

[PhunkSpunk]

"Just because something is legal doesn't make it right". It was not my intention that the law should enter into this at all. It was more a question of age skewing interpersonal dynamics and stuff like that.

I did not ask after what this guy did with the marine. It's funny: I just assumed he bottomed. That mightn't have been the case.

 

[Caaake]

I don't think it's too big of a difference of age differences to not be able to connect. It also depends on the individuals and whether they were personally ready or mature enough. What's wierd is that they were attached at the hip then it all of a sudden was a realization, sounds like there was something there but the marine had a moral conscious, some message early in his life that this wasn't right and it was eating away at him everytime the kid showed signs of immature high schooler. But it also sounds like an excuse for another reason why he didn't wanna be with him.

Ahah! This argument again...and it's fallacious.

It assumes that law and morality are necessarily connected and constitutes an ethical grey zone (this I borrow from Giorgio Agamben) where one can evade possible larger moralities through law (law thus replaces morality).

:=D Thank you.

 

[PhunkSpunk]

If he topped would you feel differently?

Yes, I think so. There'd be more of a give and take.

 

[youngnihilist]

I may be one of the most vocal people on this forum advocating same age relations but 16 and 23 isn't so bad. I don't know if a 16 year old could actually have a fulfilling relationship with a 23 year old, but this is a sitaution I'm open minded to. So the 16 year old lost it to a 23 year old hot marine war/hero - hey, at least it wasn't the perv 55 year old neighbor next door we so often hear about.

 

[KaraBulut]

Depends on your perspective.

Legally, the age of consent requirement is met, so this would not be statutory rape or molestation.

This wasn't a relationship, it was some sort of fling that lasted a couple of weeks. Whether they fucked or sucked or just got naked and played doesn't matter- it was some sort of physical relationship.

However, I'm sure from the perspective of the 16 year old's parents, it was wrong. And probably that is what matters in this case.

 

[Just_Believe18]

Obviously it was wrong if it happened and the Marine felt "weird" about the situation and cut it off. I can only imagine how the 16 year-old feels being rejected after experiencing something as intense as that was.

 

[iamthesean]

i guess it really depends on the individuals involved. My first relationship with a guy was when i was 17, and he was technically 24 (his bday is in december, so he was turning 24 that year). From my 17y/o perspective, I didn't really consider it a significant age difference, and was very mature for my age...however, now I'm 25, and even when I was 23, i thought it weird to date anywhere below 20...it all depends on the situation involved...however I don't think it'd mean a 'daddy/son' dynamic

 

[najfus]

My first experience was one that I don't really like to remember. I was 16 and the man I was with was 38. It was my first time, I felt like I was being taken advantage of in some ways- but at the same time I knew what I was doing. He was still my senior and knew that I wasn't familiar with sex. In some ways I feel as though I was sexually abused and taken advantage of. What's done is done though.

Anyway- So It's hard for me to say whether or not it's inappropriate. I would lean more so to saying that it is inappropriate but I think it solely depends on the guys and the situation.

 

[Ringfinger]

So the 16 year old lost it to a 23 year old hot marine war/hero - hey, at least it wasn't the perv 55 year old neighbor next door we so often hear about.

Because it makes it better if the 23 year-old is hot.

And because 55 year-old's should only be attracted to those their own age, otherwise they are perverts.

 

[youngnihilist]

^In a sense, yes. So what?

 

[Ringfinger]

God forbid I actually date a consenting adult whom I find attractive.

 

[LoveIsNow]

I've been in 18 and 25 which is the same seven year difference and it was fine for me. I think it would depend on the 16-year old. I don't know at what point a seven year difference would become bad. 11 and 18 is seven years as is 13 and 6, but I think 16 and 23 is feasible. I wasn't mature enough at 16, but ...

 

[Luka]

nothing wrong with that at all.

 

[saymyname]

I agree, definitely nothing wrong with it. I'm really shocked at the replies saying there's nothing wrong with it "because the law says so". Way to think for yourself, you TOOL! So according to your bunk logic, there's nothing wrong with it since it happened in MA and the age of consent there is 16... but if it happened in CA, it would be wrong since the age of consent is 18. Has it maybe dawned on you that the law is not the same as morality, that the law is not subjective, and that less than a decade ago sodomy was still illegal in some states? Does that then mean that homosexuality was wrong in those states? Jesus...

Anyways, it's not wrong because both people involved were of consent. No one was coerced. That's all there is to it. It's really sad how the gay community has lost the resistance gay liberation used to be all about. Freedom. Sexual liberation. Anyone saying it's wrong is a total idiot. Leave the sex policing to the straight people. And while a vast majority of gay men continue to salivate over a twink aesthetic that purposely tries to look vaguely-under-age, you can be a coward and lie and act like laws designed by straight people to keep you under control somehow actually equate to morality.

 

[jackoroe]

There are essentially two questions being discussed here. Is it legal? Is it right? It appears to be legal based on what others have posted as it relates to Mass. law. The second issue of is it right, is more difficult.

I would personally not judge what two people of legal age decide to do in the privacy of their own domicile. I don't feel compelled to judge the morality of others.

 

[saymyname]

There's a huge difference between what two consenting adults do, vs. committing a crime by having sex (of any kind) with a child (someone under the age of consent). The law, and the corresponding punishment for having sex with a child is no joke and you will be sent away to pound me up the ass prison for a very long time, and have to endure both jail and the rest of your life known as a child molester. Good luck with that one. The laws against sodomy were rarely enforced and were usually handed out like a speeding ticket. Just like going over the speed limit by even 2 MPH is illegal, rarely if ever, would this small of a violation result in any tickets. Comparing the old sodomy laws with current laws about sex with children isn't even in the same ballpark.

You are such a tool. You're missing my point entirely. I was pointing out that you were judging the morality of the issue by what the laws says is right or wrong, as opposed to actually forming your own objective opinion on it. Your inability to think for yourself is frightening. No where in my statement did I advocate having sex with children. I was merely pointing out that you're argument is extremely flawed because you say it's "okay" simply because MA has a lower age of consent law, where as I still think it would be "okay" even if it was in a state with a higher age of consent law. Morality is not the same thing is legality. Pot's illegal, underage drinking is illegal, but neither of those activities are actually unethical. According to you, it's "okay" because "the government says so", ie, that State. When really, it's okay because both people involved are consenting individuals who are not being coerced and who both possess sexual agency. Having sex with children is different because they can't provide consent, and even in the rare situations where they can, they aren't fully aware (agency) of what they're consenting to, or they may be being coerced. But according to you, if MA had an age of consent law at 18, this wouldn't be okay - whereas I'm saying regardless of the law in any particular state, it's still not immoral.

You then go on to state that the laws against sodomy were "rarely enforced" yet "handed out like parking tickets", which quite frankly doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Obviously it was enforced. Obviously throughout history people were burned and served jail sentences for sodomy (Oscar Wilde). Maybe you should do some research, and read a little bit about the philosophy of ethics. I never advocated that people should have sex with children and such an accusation is laughable and insulting. It's just that, unlike you, I have the capacity to comprehend that "right" and "wrong" isn't determined by arbitrary laws in individual states. According to your logic (or lake thereof) homosexuality is "wrong" in Iran because, in that culture, it's illegal. People like you get me really fired up. So if tomorrow, Roe V. Wade was overturned, or if Prop 8 remains legit, then abortion is wrong, and gay marriage is wrong because the law "says so", instead of actually being able to make compelling arguments and using rationality.

 

[sweet_taboo]

When I was 15, I was getting fucked almost everyday by school and neighborhood buddies ranging from age 16-25. At 16 I started hanging out with one of my friend's dad, too. He was 36 and very good to me...we fucked several times a week until I went away to college. Never once did I feel taken advantage of, coerced, or molested...It "kicked ass" to quote fellow JUBber, Jasun.

When I was 16 I was shagging a 26 year old college student. I didn't think I was being molested, I thought i was the luckiest guy in the world.

at 17 I was shagging a friend's dad. Again... it kicked ass.