This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

17 year old boy.....13 year old girl?

Aww she didn't want to put you off by her age, so she faked it, that's quite cute i guess :tongue:

but to be absolutely honest, i think you've got to dump her, when ur an adult she'll still be a teengaer, if you go off to uni, she'll still be in like yr10/11, in secondary, BUT if you forget about the age, you should still think that this relationship was started with a lie, and if she will lie about her age, there's no doubt, she wouldn't lie about anything else !
however, if you think its fate and you really like this girl, i'm no one to stop you :tongue:

Reply 81

Victor-PP

15

What amazes me the most is, you say you met her at a party... Wasn't she past her bed time?

Reply 82

rossg

1

Original post by T-Hill

Got to go by the "half your age + 6" rule.

17/2 = 8.5
8.5 + 6 = 14.5

13's a no-go mate!

Pretty sure it's '+7' ...

isn't it.

But either way, it's wrong OP!

Reply 83

Astonix

14

"I swear judge, I didn't know she was 13. She looked 17."

I can imagine that being your last phrase before being sent away for a sex offense. What if her parents found out? They'd damn well sure call the police on your ass if you didn't back off, especially as it's a 13 year old girl, and not a boy. Parents are more protective over girls.

Reply 84

Mayden

14

Original post by Arenas123

Nonsexual ? You are talking about a nonsexual relationship ? Essentially a friendship, that's not what the OP is talking about.

Explain to me the difference between two friends and between two people that are "in a relationship" but having no sexual activity.

So by your logic what's wrong with an 13 year old hanging around with a 40 year old ? It's nonsexual right ? Nothing is going on right so lets let them hang out.

I know that quote wasn't directed at me but I find your opinion lacks insight. There's a reason why sex offenders aren't allowed to be teachers. What is a student teacher relationship ? It's non sexual right ? Why shouldn't they be allowed to teach then ?

It is psychologically abnormal for a man to see a girl as young as 14 as any form of relationship (beyond the obvious family connections) and just because you got it on at 14 doesn't mean it's right. Would you want your daughter to grow up like you did ? Being with an 18 year old at 14 ?

Maybe I should clarify;
non sexual, not engaging in sexual activity together. (sex, foreplay, fondling)
Cuddles, hand holding, kisses (just as she would partake with any other 13/14 year old)

I'm in a relationship similar to above, just cuddles, kisses, hand holding. We're a couple, we're not just friends. It's quite easy to tell the difference. There's an /emotional/ intimacy with the person you're with, not just a sexual one.

Referring to the idea of a 40 year old friend, my daughter, just as I was allowed to, will be able to hang around with whatever friends she sees fit at that age, if that happens to include friends that are much older than her, for example maybe they've all met at a sport club, then so be it. As long as nothing sexual was happening. Friendship shouldn't be based on age, but things such as common interests, humour perhaps, things like that. Not age.

There is a HUGE leap between a 17/18 year old and a 40 year old man. For starts, the girl is young enough to be his daughter, once she hits 18 that's fine, she's an adult. But these lads are still only teenagers themselves, it's a lot different. I feel like you're just being pedantic here.

Reply 85

Arenas123

9

Original post by overtherainbow

there is kind of a way of testing whether they are mature enough- doctors use it to decide whether to prescribe contraceptives to underage girls- 'Gillick competancy'

however this is not to say i condone the OPs actions- even if you can hold off sex, it will create a social stigma as people will assume you are if they see you together. can you cope with the pressure of that on the relationship? You do hear of it happening within schools etc but it raises eyebrows and hardly ever works out- can you imagine leaving school with her having years left? Possibly finishing uni with her still at school?

I know you aren't talking to me but the thing you are talking about has been highly scrutinised by child psychiatrists everywhere. Lots of doctors and politicians got pretty angry about it. Basically telling teenagers they can break the law if they throw enough toys out of the pram. It was strongly opposed to in concern for it being used for anything other than contraception

Unless I'm much mistaken about Gillick competancy it is a last resort more than anything, it's for kids that refuse to speak to their parents or listen to the doctor. It was put in place because people were saying they went to doctors for contraceptives but didn't get them. It's for kids who basically say "give me the pill or I'll do it anyway". Doctors and politicians denied the notion for it to be used for anything other than that. There were talks about minors being able to make medical decisions etc. and they were thrown out pretty unanimously. The point is basically we can't stop kids having sex so we have to give them contraception because sex without contraception is even worse. Lesser of two evils really.

(The above paragraphs are based on what I seem to remember reading about it, if it's all rubbish then I apologise :smile:

)

Original post by edd360

First of all, thank you for taking my post seriously, and replying as such. And yes I agree that you could argue nothing is morally wrong, but let me ask this question: Who is getting hurt in this scenario? No one, they are both consenting. Murder and rape are wrong because they both result in the un-consenting peril of others.

I think it's more the potential for things to go pear shaped rather than whether or not they actually will.

As you can see by the reactions of the posters, it's inherently seen as wrong, at the least, morally dubious. If random nobodies on the internet see it as such, imagine how both parties parents, siblings, friends etc would feel if they found out. Some would consider it fine, but other would less so.

Which is fine, to a point. If you genuinely have feelings for that person and think it can go somewhere, then there's a lot of flak you'd be willing to take, but think about the abuse if something went wrong. OP decides that he doesn't want to see the 13 year old anymore. He breaks up with her. The 13 year old takes it really badly, and cries underage rape, which her parents back up due to fabricated evidence, the fact that they didn't always know where she was, etc.

The OP is at the absolute minimum looking at a criminal record in that situation, because there is a lot that people are willing to fill in about a case such as this.

Again, I'm not suggesting this would happen, but it is undeniable that the potential for things to go wrong are more prevalent in a relationship such as this than a relationship between two 16+ year olds.

His best bet would be to just wait. They both know they like each other, if it ends up in 2-3 years time that they're still both single and still share feelings, then it's all perfectly legal and above board.

Reply 88

Arenas123

9

Original post by Mayden

Maybe I should clarify;
non sexual, not engaging in sexual activity together. (sex, foreplay, fondling)
Cuddles, hand holding, kisses (just as she would partake with any other 13/14 year old)

I'm in a relationship similar to above, just cuddles, kisses, hand holding. We're a couple, we're not just friends. It's quite easy to tell the difference. There's an /emotional/ intimacy with the person you're with, not just a sexual one.

Referring to the idea of a 40 year old friend, my daughter, just as I was allowed to, will be able to hang around with whatever friends she sees fit at that age, if that happens to include friends that are much older than her, for example maybe they've all met at a sport club, then so be it. As long as nothing sexual was happening. Friendship shouldn't be based on age, but things such as common interests, humour perhaps, things like that. Not age.

There is a HUGE leap between a 17/18 year old and a 40 year old man. For starts, the girl is young enough to be his daughter, once she hits 18 that's fine, she's an adult. But these lads are still only teenagers themselves, it's a lot different. I feel like you're just being pedantic here.

We clearly have very different points of view on this.

As for you saying you would allow your 14 year old to hang around with a 40 year old ? In my opinion it's disgusting. Sorry to sound harsh but if you think your 14 year old can make their own decisions, well I hope when you're older you change your mind about it.

Friendship should be based on age, you're friends should be going through the same things as you, be at the same stages in their life. The fact that you hadn't even started GCSE's when you were with a guy that was at uni or already had a job and you think that is a normal relationship tells me there's no point arguing with you.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore because the fact your in a relationship that started like this makes me feel like you're directing rationalisations towards me, it's not really a debate on the best interests of the child anymore is it ?

I have my opinion and you have yours. I hope none of my posts offended you but the difference is your arguments are based on emotional irrationalities (how can they not be when you are in this relationship ? ) Whereas mine is based on the years (3) of reading I've done into things like developmental and child psychology as well as psychosexuality etc.

Basically ? I have no reason to object to your relationship, I'm not your father or anyone that knows you, so ask yourself why I feel the need to ? You could say I'm just a bad person who doesn't want you to be happy or I could genuinely be worried about you and girls that go through what you do (I spent the summer of 09 at a shelter for abused women working with psychiatrists from Doctors Without Borders and you'd be amazed how many women years on they're still rationalising what they went through and the people that did it (just to be clear I'm not saying you're being abused but the way your relationship started isn't healthy in my eyes))

Reply 89

brzeczyszczykiewic

Originally Posted by T-Hill
Got to go by the "half your age + 6" rule.

17/2 = 8.5
8.5 + 6 = 14.5

13's a no-go mate!
---------------------------------------

hehe !
do if i am a man and I'm 55, my 'girlfriend' should be 33 ? :smile:

Reply 90

Mayden

14

Original post by TheFlyingDutchman

I don't remember insulting you or being angry at any point in that post please quote the area that was directed as an insult towards you :confused:

What reason does a man have for hanging around with a girl so much younger than him then ? Would you be ok with your kids hanging around with someone a lot older than them if they told you it was nonsexual ?

Even men that seek friendships with kids that age are sick in my opinion. There is no logical reason for them to pursue friendships with girls that young. What's wrong with people their own age ?

The way you, err.. typed, made it seem like you were talking down to me. Y'know, with all the eye rolling, and the "you think you can just stand there and blahblah!" And well, raging on about sexual relations, without stopping to consider if I agreed with it or not.

Maybe, just maybe, they have common interests. They both attend a sports club, end up playing together often, find out they have the same music taste, decide to swap cd's, yknow, normal friend stuff that isn't bound by age limits?

I'll take the same approach as my parents did with me - if I'm comfortable around the people and (at that age) let them know where I was going, they saw no issue. They knew I got a long with older people better. I've met up with people almost twice my age just to go for a bite to eat together to chat about something we had in common, that we were both passionate about, sometimes it was just more than the two of us, sometimes not, it's no biggie as long as it's just a platonic friendship.

Personally, I feel I turned out fine, I've been in a committed relationship for almost 3 and a half years and I'm not bound by age limits with my friends, if I find someone I like, I'll befriend them, why shouldn't I?

My friends generally always seem to be a lot older than me, the average at the moment is about only 4-5 years older than me, but that's since I became ill and lost touch with lots of people from clubs etc.

SEEKING friendships with underage children is quite odd, but innocently coming across each other and enjoying each others company shouldn't be an issue and people should stop being so frightened of this.

However, back to the point-
if you both like each other, to hell with stigma and everyone else, cuddle, hold hands, kiss even if you both get along and want to be with each other. just don't (bold for all those who keep believing that I'm all for breaking the law!) break the law and have sexual contact such as well, sex. Just try and get/stay on her parents good side if you do meet them, things can be tough with this sort of age gap, but once people see it's not just a fling with an older lad/underage girl, then they'll stop giving you so much grief about it.

plan b is that you?

Original post by Anonymous

Last month at a party I got drunk and got with this nice looking girl :smile:

I thought this was great; she told me she was 16 and she looked about 17. We exchanged numbers and I went home happy because she seemed to like me :smile:

The following week we went out together and we talked. She has an amazing personality to go with her nice looks and we kissed again. At this stage I realised that I liked her quite a lot :smile:

Recently she told me that she was only 13 years old. I was shocked but it didn't make me like her any less. She is a beautiful girl and wonderful to be with :smile:

she looks about 17 and is so mature.

I'm not sure if I should go into a relationship with her or leave it? I would never ever have sex with her; as much as I may gain the desire to, I will never. All I'm saying is she looks 17, we like each other, and if I don't have sex with her, will it be a problem?

Please don't come on here and say its illegal, I'm a pedo or any other rubbish like that. Its not illegal to go out with her, and I didn't know she was 13 before I began to like her and she looks 17 so I can't be a pedo.

Advice please :frown:

Look, this girl lied about her age when she met you. That means that she knows that logically she's too young for you.

I'm only a year older than you and have a sister that age, she's mature, looks around seventeen, and can have adult conversations. She'd be physically and mentally mature enough to be in a relationship with somebody your age and if he was a nice decent guy and truly willing to wait then I'd have no problems with that aside from general older sibling protectiveness.

However despite all that emotionally at that age nobody is ready to be with someone older than them. Thirteen is an age where you're experimenting and learning, not about longer term relationships. In the end it will be you whose hurt, since you've obviously come to like this girl a great lot to even be considering this and choosing to wait. And if things do go wrong and the police get involved, it will be you who the blame is placed on.

You should end this relationship before you get any closer. Stay in touch as a friend if you like but din't get yourself into any situation where you might be tempted. If you still want to be with her in a few years time, even after going off to university then that's wonderful. But the thing is a lot can change in a few years, especially a girl that age.

Reply 93

niall c

Original post by TheFlyingDutchman

You think the government makes this decision lightly ? You think they just pick an age like 16 out of the air ? They consult with experts in the field (in this case experts in child development/doctors/biologists) and then they make a decision.

Actually, yes, it was pulled out of the air. The age of consent was raised from 13 to 16 in 1885 in response to mindless tabloid-created public uproar over the non-existent practice of 'white slavery'. It was the first tabloid witch hunt, from what I've read: Stead, the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, decided to prove white slavery was happening by kidnapping a girl and then posing as her saviour.

So, in effect, there are two points. Firstly, the age's raising had nothing to do with fumbling teens, but rather the largely imaginary threat of kidnapping paedophiles (much like today, alas). Secondly, more broadly, we should suspect the motives of those that pose as the barometers of morality - that great press of ours. Paedos are on every corner! The drugs that we don't approve of and tax are evil! Britain's full!

I agree with edd360 on this. Your hysterical knee-jerk condemnations add nothing - even if you are right. If someone has a different opinion than you, merely shouting at them that they are morally defective if they do not share it will not help anyone; it merely allows you to feel better about yourself. This is true even if you are correct: screaming 'of course the earth is round! You must be a moron!' at a Flat Earth Society member misses the point, makes you the dogmatic one, and will do nothing to persuade your victim. So: show yourself to be educated by engaging with the argument, considering and evaluating his proposition rather than unthinkingly aiming to prove it wrong, and see what happens. To do otherwise is to remain a slave of your present opinion.

Oh, and if you find someone that is genuinely stupid and not open to argument: ridicule them. Don't descend to their level by shouting and thoughtlessly condemning.

Reply 94

overtherainbow

10

Original post by Arenas123

I know you aren't talking to me but the thing you are talking about has been highly scrutinised by child psychiatrists everywhere. Lots of doctors and politicians got pretty angry about it. Basically telling teenagers they can break the law if they throw enough toys out of the pram. It was strongly opposed to in concern for it being used for anything other than contraception

Unless I'm much mistaken about Gillick competancy it is a last resort more than anything, it's for kids that refuse to speak to their parents or listen to the doctor. It was put in place because people were saying they went to doctors for contraceptives but didn't get them. It's for kids who basically say "give me the pill or I'll do it anyway". Doctors and politicians denied the notion for it to be used for anything other than that. There were talks about minors being able to make medical decisions etc. and they were thrown out pretty unanimously. The point is basically we can't stop kids having sex so we have to give them contraception because sex without contraception is even worse. Lesser of two evils really.

(The above paragraphs are based on what I seem to remember reading about it, if it's all rubbish then I apologise :smile:

)

you're right its not ideal but the basis of it is that they are mature enough to have sex in theory as to pass as competant they must show an understanding. i was just using as a way of pointing out there is a way of testing maturity. its flaws are more to do with the fact that the child will still have sex when thats not what most people would see as the best thing for them

Reply 95

bluewater69

10

I bet she's already got a bucket.

Reply 96

niall c

Original post by paradox13

Sure, but there are reasons as to why people see it as immoral...it isn't just something random.

Can you find reasons as to why you believe it is morally questionable? Or is it just a 'gut' feeling of yours?

Are you fulfilling your username here?

In case you're not: yes, of course our gut moral reaction must be based on reason and correct. That's why we've always known that homosexuality is harmless whilst slavery is abhorrent.

Reply 97

Arenas123

9

Original post by overtherainbow

you're right its not ideal but the basis of it is that they are mature enough to have sex in theory as to pass as competant they must show an understanding. i was just using as a way of pointing out there is a way of testing maturity. its flaws are more to do with the fact that the child will still have sex when thats not what most people would see as the best thing for them

You realise basically every 13 year old that walks into a clinic can pass it right ? They have to understand what sex is and what it entails. I was 11 when we had that talk in school.