Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Relativity of law

  1. Sep 25, 2007 #1
    I've come to the conclusion that many things are more relative than what I initially thought. For example, a few weeks ago it made the news in San Diego that a 26-year-old coach at a school had with 17-year-old student. I was like "so what!" I bet he was considered a "child predator" (which I think is a retarded term). I don't understand why people become aghast or infuriated when there is an age difference in a relationship. The fact that one's lungs are older than someone else's is of no significance.
    In othere countries, a relationsihp consisting of a 15-year-old woman and an older man would attract no attention. She is a woman as biology dicates. Either biology is wrong or society needs to reformulate it's perception of what is and what is not okay. The same applies to men. What I have noticed about the US is that society (or those in charge of instilling social behavior) tries to force adults to become children. For example, referring to adults in their twenties (or late teens) as merely children and the creation of stupid laws to reinforce the idea that theses people are kids. This is why we consider 16-year-olds kids. They're socialized to be so.

    People have too many preconceived notions. I used to be a Christian up until two years ago and since then have formulated my own beliefs, including morality.
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 25, 2007 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The reason age difference matters is because the child-adult relationship is an unequal one. The adult is in a position of power.

    There is, of course, a difficulty in defining when a person becomes old enough to be mature enough to consent.
  4. Sep 26, 2007 #3
    You are saying age difference matters only when the relationship involves someone who is not old enough to consent? Then you do agree that age difference is irrelevant between two consenting adults (whatever that may be defined as), correct?
  5. Sep 26, 2007 #4
    Does anyone want to comment on the age of majority, hypocrisy between age of majority and U.S. drinking age, "child predation", society, etc? This can be an interesting conversation or debate.
  6. Sep 26, 2007 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, that is correct, at least according to the law...
  7. Sep 28, 2007 #6

    But the whole point of my commentary is to state that the law should not dictate when a person is able to be in a relationship. The idea of law taking this up and treating it alike with violent crimes is amusing.
    It's amusing how people are socialized (i.e. brainwashed) to arbitrarily believe a certain set of ideas with such conviction.
  8. Sep 28, 2007 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That's generally been the tradition throughout the history of civilization. A young marriage prevents a woman from becoming an unmarried mother. The rules for being a husband or wife are unchanging and simply need to be learned. If it's a civilization where marriages are arranged by the parents and the daughter/son doesn't like the arrangement, then it's just because they haven't learned their role yet. A little more pressure (socialization) and they usually learn their role and stop complaining.

    That doesn't match a modern society where everyone gets to choose their own future. With lots of options, a person needs more education and maturity (socialization) before they can choose the right options on their own. You could say having two young people (below the age of 18) choose to marry each other is just as bad as a mature person marrying a person too young (below the age of 18) - in fact we do - we make it illegal for people under 18 to get married. Except being too young to make responsible decisions exempts both of the young people from being prosecuted for taking advantage of each other when it comes to premarital sex, etc, while it's illegal for a person who should be more mature (if he/she had been socialized properly) to take advantage of the poor decision capability of a young person.

    So, yes, in one sense, you're right. People are socialized (brainwashed) to believe a certain set of ideas, but that's true of any well functioning culture.

    In fact, functioning too well in the area of socialization some times jeopardizes the very existence of a culture if it's exposed to a new situation (people from a different culture move in and start to interact with your culture, for example). Socialization makes a lot of things in a civilization run a lot smoother and more efficiently, but it also makes it harder to change with the times.

    In this case, laws about adult/child relationships are probably an appropriate adaptation to modern life just because we have a much more complicated environment we have to live in.
  9. Sep 29, 2007 #8
    It is understandable that modern law regarding relationships exist since we live in an unforgiving world where the pace is very fast, a world in which if someone messes up (like having a kid at the wrong time) one will be in a bad situation. For instance, a pregnant high school mom may have to drop out.
    But, how about we make our modern world more conformative to the way things naturally should run, that is, more in line with biology. I would argue that if 16-year-olds were not treated as Gerber babies then they would function in accordance with their natural biological, adult state. Then, we can push the age of majority down and not have to worry about artificial rules (socialization) regarding relationships at that age.

    I'm glad you agree with the fact that humanity is brainwashed. So many people believe their ideas are innately and uniquely correct.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook