Historically most men date women that are younger than them. The real question is whether the girls are of legal age otherwise there are laws regarding how far the relationship can go.

Elvis Presley started dating his future wife while she was below the legal age to get married.

Elvis Presley also had serious drug problems, I don't really think he is the best example...

Are you saying you don't use Elvis Presley as a model for all of your important life choices?

I thought everyone did this.

It's good to be the King.

Mm-mm, oh, oh, yeahhh, yeahhh!

Gee Ora, what do you think about this?

@"The real question is whether the girls are of legal age otherwise there are laws regarding how far the relationship can go." - do you think women magically turn into different people at the point they pass the age of consent?

I think that there is a horribley false dichotomy or the good vs evil, these people are legal therefore everything they do is fine, and those people are rapists, cancer, and hitler.

And when you are faced with thinking either i'm good or i'm hitler, everyone will justify their behaviour as being closer to good.

Well this comes to a point of legislation of morality, doesn't it? We arbitrarily make up a number for legal age of consent and say anything before this is bad anything after this is fine. Ora's right in that the "age of consent" is nothing but a random point in time. However, look at the alternatives. Do you impose some sort of 1/2 + 7 rule? That seems extremely authoritarian in my view, and should not be done. Or do you abolish the age of consent?

My personal moral views aside, I don't really think the government, or us, should be telling anyone when they can or cannot have sex. It should be up to parents, and unless some evidence of abusive or neglectful parents/significant other comes up, than it should stay between a couple and their respective parents (if they are under age).

@KC, you see my reasoning at least, but my conclusion is not to require alternatives (though your proposal isn't a bad one) i'm not saying we need to get rid of the law.

I'm saying we should see it as a minimum. Waiting for girls to turn age of consent +1 day before preying on them is not the ideal. We need people to think about how they act.

But why do we have this predator-prey relationship in the first place, i've heard numerous 20 something year old women saying that none of the guys their age are interested in dating them. There is a failure of moral responsibility among some men to act appropriately, and a failure of the rest of the men to act as decent role models... That is my conclusion.

I don't see it a responsibility that any individual family can take on, i believe it is a communal responsibility.

And further, i think there is a visible demand for such role models. There are pick-up artists writing books, and pro-rape advocates organising meetings. People who i presume have personally found there is a need, and decided that other men must be like them. (and i refuse to link to any of these men, because i find them abhorrent)

What you're talking about is a lack of moral uprightness, which, regardless of whether morality is relative or not, is absolutely relative to what people believe. That was practically incoherent, but I think you understand.

I don't know that i would put it in terms of moral uprigthness. I believe there is a spectrum of male behaviour, at one end is this case of a 15 year old girl in a 'relationship' with a football hero of hers - that is an extreme; and in the much more common, there are 23 year old graduates dating 17 year olds who like the attention.

On the other extreme, there are men who do what? Where is the example of, as you put it morally upright individuals. How are they being exemplars of their morals? You listen to feminists talk about rape culture, and you can see men being told what not to do. Which is fine, i think we should listen to people telling us something is damaging them, and decide to take that information on-board. But where are the men who are standing up and telling other men what TO do (as opposed to what not to do...)

I know my morals are radically different than a lot of people in the world and on this site, including you ora. But, I agree that this is a moral problem which must be dealt with on a moral level. Which means that yes, men and women need to be activists in their communities - and on a larger scale - to help others understand the consequence of their actions and to hopefully convince them of taking some more ethical or moral path.

I do not, however, think this should be legislated away. Legally speaking, I think these people have every right to do whatever they want in regards to their sexual habits.

You tell them this:
"The man who seduced me as a teenager wasn't talented or intelligent, or even a capable adult. He had dropped out of several degree programmes, lost several girlfriends and had alienated various batches of friends before he met me. A grown man doesn't usually have a teenage girlfriend unless he needs to feel good about himself, unless he is fresh out of people to be impressed by him."

And then if you are the father of the girl, tell him that you'll take him to an inch of his life if he ever comes near your daughter.

@Jeff, let me be clear. Your response is entirely insufficient in my eyes.

Further to that, i suspect it is damaging.

So your attempt to help is, tell men they are useless and don't deserve to have a girlfriend, because they are not 'a capable adult';

And further you add the threat, 'beating within an inch of his life' (i would note that the threat of losing your career and fame as a footballer was not enough to stop the recent famous case in england - so these sorts of threats, don't work.)

Basically completely failing to address my question, what do you tell them TO DO.

Lastly, you as a father don't own your daughter, and shouldn't be acting like she's a piece of meat to be despoiled. She should have sex with whomever she wants (or on her own) as often as she wants. And acting like this is 10,000 years ago, and your little daughter can be traded with your neighbour as breeding stock - but only if she hasn't touched another man, so he isn't cuckooed - if frankly disgusting to me.

@KC: i can accept that we disagree on legislating for these issues; and i would go so far as to say that expecting a legal system to handle it may be dis-empowering for humans; that it may discourage them from taking responsibility for themselves to educate their children and model positive behaviours.

But we do live in a society where we compromise and accept that legal system are in place to protect us from encounters with strangers, by taking vigilante justice (of the kind Jeff Kuta seems to advocate) out of our hands and into state hands. This is different from traditional cultures where you rarely encountered strangers, and most people you knew would be life long neighbours.

I don't think we can exist as a modern society without these kinds of rules. I just believe that these rules are insufficient. So i suspect that i'm in agreement with you at least that "men and women need to be activists in their communities". As it happens, i'm watching an related discussion on a lot of issues with Jarred Diamond on youtube. Which does include a lot of things about justice and traditional value (if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceLuaf7low4 )

@Randomizer, you said: "Historically most men date women that are younger than them."

how long is your history, and is the reason for that based on economic power, and 'date' in this case being related to purchase of women? Even in the 50s there was more work for men, and men who were later in their careers would be able to afford fancier dates and attract younger women.

This amounts to a transfer of wealth from men (who work) to women (who do unpaid labour in the home and raising children).

I don't actually support a continuation of either of these practices, and i've read at least in one place that there is evidence that women care less about the income of potential partners, as there is a lot more freedom and equality in the workplace.

Ora, but that is not what you are talking about. We aren't talking about "encounters with strangers." I am absolutely for punishing rapists and molesters and I know of no sane person that is not. This isn't assault or any other sort of aggravated crime we are talking about (in this context). What you have specifically called out is that there are two consensual adults(?) having sex, which they should have every legal right to do. I don't care if they are 20 and 60, they should have that right.

Now, this is completely aside from any sort of moral imperative. I absolutely agree with people advocating for a more moral approach to sex/romantic relationships (among other things).

orathaic, historically as in ancient Greece, during the time of Columbus, and even in the Bible.

I agree with you that it is beside the point, but the aside is that we live in a society where encounters with strangers are regulated by a legal system.

Here we do get into issues like domestic abuse, and how to regulate those inter-personal relationships. I presume you agree that a person who kills their partner should be imprisoned. So there should be some regulation of personal relationships. (ok, we can assume that murder was non-consensual, but domestic abuse usually involves people who don't see leaving the relationship as an option, so i might question how possible it is for them to consent...)

In the case of two people where one is much younger there is much more opportunity to abuse; because one person has more confidence, experience, and power. The other may be exploring new aspects of themselves for the first time - and not able to recognise abusive behaviours when they first appear - thus we're talking about a lack of informed consent.

@Leon, what about those histories? Do they represent examples that you think we should emulate and if so why?

Wait, ora, I thought it was already stated that domestic abuse is a separate issue.

@orathaic: Please re-read the article you posted and pay special attention to the part I quoted. Older people who pursue teenagers really are creeps who can't relate to actual adults. I have no qualms about telling that to their faces and damaging their fragile self-esteems even further. They should not be focusing their attentions on anyone else's children. They should be focusing on fixing themselves by getting professional help or counseling.

My comments have nothing to do with agency of the teenager involved.

And you know what, I certainly have a lot to say about what goes on with the people who live in my house and interact with my family. Strangers do not deserve my time and attention and absolutely do not deserve to interact with my family if I deem them a bad or corrupting influence. The severity of an actual threat, determines the severity of the response. Go have a kid for yourself and figure out if your life changes.

And further, I really don't give two shits if you find my response insufficient. Your response reminds me of those bullshit NAMBLA arguments: If it is legal, then it is acceptable. There are very good reasons statutory rape can be considered a crime.

regulating domestic abuse is regulating personal relationships, which are not strangers, where then should that regulation end?

"And further, I really don't give two shits if you find my response insufficient. Your response reminds me of those bullshit NAMBLA arguments: If it is legal, then it is acceptable. There are very good reasons statutory rape can be considered a crime."

Read what i said, it being a crime doesn't stop it happening. I'm not aruging for it to be legal, i'm arguing for us to do more.