Yes. I find it....odd, that prior to about 100 years ago, sctreching back to the dawn of mankind, for men in thier 30's and even much older, it was normal to marry a girl of 15. Hell, it'still that way in some counrties, but i n the states now, if you've just turned 18, and your girlfriend is 2 weeks younger, you'd get arrested for statutory rape. Then in two weeks, you can be 70 and have sex with the girl legally.
shareYour math is confusing.
I've just turned 18, and in 2 weeks I'll be 70?
It'd be quite a shock, but having sex with an 18 year old would make up for it.
No, s/he saying that if you're 18 and have sex with someone that's 17 years and 50 weeks old it's statuatory rape but if you're 18 and have sex with someone that's much older, like 70 years old, it's all right, albeit people might still use words such as golddigger and cradlerobber to describe the couple.
Light travels faster than sound,
that's why people seem bright,
until you hear them.
So you go to jail for turning 70 2 weeks after you turn 18. That's the old west for ya.
shareuh...no.
18 year old + 17 year and 50 weeks old
vs
18 year old + 70 year old
Does not mean 18 years and 2 weeks = 70 years old.
Light travels faster than sound,
that's why people seem bright,
until you hear them.
Unless the law has been changed without me knowing it is no offence to have sex with your grandmother, probably because:
1) There is no way she would fall pregnant naturally.
2) Who the hell would want to pork his Nanna anyway?
but i n the states now, if you've just turned 18, and your girlfriend is 2 weeks younger, you'd get arrested for statutory rape.
[deleted]
Try this: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sydney+penny
shareSeriously...yes. Look up state laws. Idaho is that way. My nephew fought this very thing. Both seniors in high school, he 18, she 17 and 49 weeks. He eventually pled guily to injury to a child. It's a nightmare for boys like these. Once parents press charges it becomes a state issue and they will not just drop it.t
shareThen they should've had sex when he was 17 or just waited when she turned 18 or if all he cares about is sex, find someone over 18. Too stupid. I don't get people like this like someone on the US news insisting on having sex often when it dislocates her pelvis every single time. Stupid.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel
[deleted]
Back when people were hunter gatherers they matured and had sex much later than Neolithic farmers. So the world is just righting itself in my view.
shareBack when people were hunter gatherers they matured and had sex much later than Neolithic farmers.
Neolithic era actually spread disease and people became less healthy due to diseases and malnutrition. And it's not true people had a shorter lifespan amongst hunter gatherers. Shorter lifespan started during the neolithic and amongst other Homos like Neanderthals. Any Anthropology book/article will confirm that. It's anthro101.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel
The guy is so horny he can't wait 2 weeks for his girlfriend to be of age? People like that deserve their comeuppance, too stupid.
share[deleted]
Actually the laws vary from state to state. Where I live (Virginia), they sensibly make age distinctions. Have sex with anyone 12 and under, even if the girl is a willing participant, you'll be charged with rape, based on the (sensible) reasoning that a girl aged 12 is simply too young to give informed consent. It's the exact same statute that would be used if you raped an adult woman at gunpoint: 18.2-61. Have sex with a girl aged 13-14 and it's a lesser offense (though still a felony), carnal knowledge of a child between thirteen and fifteen years of age: 18.2-63 (yes, I know the statute says between 13 and 15, but if you read the test of the statute, it stipulates a child under the age of 15. And if you have sex with a girl aged 15-17, it's just a misdemeanor: contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and isn't even specifically a sex crime -- it's the same code you would use to charge someone giving a minor alcohol or cigarettes.
Other states do it differently though.
by legafford (Mon Jun 14 2010 18:50:22)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
would anybody else have done her if offered?
[deleted]
I have to agree, more or less, with tplasts comments. Not necessarily about the feminist issue, but certainly with the idea of morality when it comes to consensual sex.
As tplast points out, most cultures throughout most of history have had a younger age of consent than we have in modern western culture, so it would be arrogant to assume that we are right and so many billions of others were wrong.
However, I don't think it is simple as all that and I'm not for a moment suggesting that any country ought to lower the age of consent.
The factor which I think makes the difference is the nature of the society in which you are raised. In most cases, when the law of a country has a lower age of consent, it typically goes further than that and applies to other aspects of maturity as well, such as the age of education and when you are seen as an adult.
If someone lives in a culture where they finish their education at say 13 or 14 and are expected to start work at that age, then logically speaking, if you are of childbearing age, there is no reason why you should not also be allowed to marry, have sex, and have children of your own.
I'm from the UK, where compulsory education continues until age 16 (although many carry onto higher education). I find it no coincidence that the sexual age of consent is the same. It is very likely that anyone below this age will be still be living at home with their parents and in virtually ever way is still treated as a child. They cannot leave school, cannot drink, cannot drive, so although they may be sexually mature in that they are post-pubescent, they are culturally speaking still children, so it would be wrong in my opinion to allow them to have sex.
I know that not everyone would agree, but hope that you would see the logic of the argument that because we are more than just animals, it is not as simple as whether someone is physically sexually mature, but whether they are culturally and emotionally an adult.
In the case of this film, I'd say that Megan was most definitely still a child. The way she childishly reacted to Preacher's rejection of her was evidence of that, if nothing else. In a different social setting though, it may have been different for her.
Great movie btw, one of the last great westerns. :)
[deleted]
No offense taken and no need to apologise. :)
As a quick aside, I've been reading imdb for a LOOONNGG time, since around 96/97, but have always avoided getting involved in the message boards as it seems it's very difficult for anyone to enter into a serious debate (or a trivial one sometimes) without it very quickly descending into petty bickering and name calling. Now that I've recently decided to start posting to the boards, I'm making every effort to be polite, as I enjoy a good discussion from time to time.
But I digress.
That's an interesting point you raise about parental authority. Not entirely sure what my opinion is yet, as I can see that it's probably a case of a rock and a hard place, and government interference may well just be the case that it's the minority that ruin it for everyone else.
What I mean by that is that I agree that in most cases, the parents should have primary control over their own children, rather than government (or educational authority). The problem is that a small number of parents would abuse their position, and for that reason it is correct that another authority needs to act to protect the child.
It's similar to the sexual consent issue. I know that in the UK, one of the driving factors in the late 19th century for raising the age was because of child prostitution. I expect that prior to this, there were many under-16's who were essentially adults, and therefore it's reasonable to allow them to marry and have sex. But in order to protect those few who were being abused by the current system, the law was changed for everyone.
It's a bit of a rock and a hard place.
So coming back to the parental authority issue, whilst 99.9% of parents love their children and should be trusted by the government to do what's right for them without interference, there are those who wouldn't. And since you can't have one law for some and a different one for another, the majority suffer in order for the minority to be protected.
That's just my tuppence worth anyway.
[deleted]
hell yes sydney is, was, always gorgeous cherokee blood i believe
share[deleted]
Oh, yes! Repeatedly..... with much enthusiasm.....
shareIt's not just about the age of consent now - or in the Old West. It's about social convention. Female marriage in early adolescence was considered common. There was no idea of the dirty old man forcing his "Lolita Complex" on a "child". Crude though it sounds, the motto was "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed". But what sounds crude to modern (American) ears was only "life" back then ... just as it continues to be in certain States and countries. And I doubt that girls who knew of early marriage, and/or were in line for such a wedding, were victims of the high levels of sexualization that modern US girls supposedly are.
They knew that, next after chores, their prime social value was in leaving the family with one less mouth to feed, and in increasing the baby supply in an era when husbands died young and infants and young children died frequently. Young marriage gave a girl a man to cling to - a man, for better or worse (as the ritual stipulates) younger and statistically likely to be more robust than her father. Thus, independence - of a sort, independence at least from the immediate family's hegemony - might be one byproduct of marrying young and leaving the home. It was not a case of dirty old men hunting down innocent children. Innocence of that kind must have been a very rare thing in the Old West, even though sexual information was supposedly inaccurate and skewed, and only dispensed in shamefaced whisperings. But children with eyes to see would have naturally observed animal copulation, as well as come upon the classic Freudian "primal scene" between the parents. Likewise, they would also by observation and experience know something in advance about child-rearing, simply from being part of a probably rather large family.
"Megan was good looking!!!!" Yes, she was good-looking, more good-looking than her mother in fact. Sydney Penny was a beautiful child in The Thorn Birds, and was a beautiful young woman in Pale Rider. And her character was convincingly "of age". If anybody doesn't think so, they should check their reaction to Sydney's level gaze and equally level delivery of her line to Clint: "I think I love you."
Now, if that line made anyone fall out of their chair laughing, or switch off your DVD player in a paroxysm of anti-pedophiliac outrage, then certainly Sydney's line was either absurdly comical, or inappropriately sexual. But otoh, if anyone considers the line realistic, naturalistic, and appropriate to Sydney's character, then obviously the film has succeeded in depicting the subject of "Old West Young Marriage" truthfully, tastefully, realistically, tenderly, and authentically. And if that's the case, then no hint of scandal hovers around the character, her wishes, her sexuality, or her probity.