semiotic_pirate: (meg ryan)
[personal profile] semiotic_pirate
Now I know why people are freaked out by the creepiness factor when seeing people dating (or getting married) where those people's age gap is so huge. Some cartoonist (who may have gotten it elsewhere) put it into an easy to remember formula:

[(older person's age/2) + 7] where the older person doesn't date/marry anyone who is under this age. When the age is younger than the legal age of consent, your dating pool shrinks until that lowest allowable age equals the legal age of consent. What therefore, defines the upper age range? Add 7 years to our age?

Therefore, unlike the comic strip, an 18 y/o's dating range is NOT 16-22, but rather 18-25.

The age of consent is tricky, because if it is 16, but the other person is 18 and above, then one of the people is considered an adult, the other not. Seems unequal.

Again, if one is 18 and the other 21, then it is again unequal because one person is limited to the types of activities and locations they are allowed by society. A 21 y/o can go to a bar, an 18 y/o cannot. And forget about the 16 y/o.

Then there is the supposed 'age of reason' of 25... which is best known by those of us who wait(ed) for our insurance rates to go down. It has something to do with our biological maturity, I believe. I did hear what exactly it was based on the other night but cannot remember it.

There is the possibility of people (above the age of consent perhaps, above the age of reason more probably) with a vast amount of age between them to understand and love one another... but there is an 'ick factor' involved at that point in the eyes of society. This ick factor was once more geared toward May-December romances where the December was a woman but has now expanded to include the male Decembers as well.

It comes down to a balance and availability of resources and the power structures that control that balance and availability. Which is why, when the December is rich, it is more acceptable to society. This doesn't make it "right" either way. Although it would be interesting to see what would result from an equalized society where all needs are met without needing to worry about them (i.e. food, water, shelter, clothing, health care, etc.). What would happen to the mating practices? It would no longer be ruled by an unconscious, or otherwise, need to find someone who can or someone to "take care of."

Hat tip to [livejournal.com profile] crasch

This was also prompted by this women's studies community post about this website. Which brings our creepy ick factor to maximum.

I find it interesting that if you reorder the spacing between the words (brought on by looking at the all-male cast of contacts for the company):

Marr Your Daughter

The misspelling of mar is apropos of the whole mindset of this community of selling young, underaged, female girls off to men who have the money to pay for them.

Update: Someone found that Snopes has passed sentence on the website, naming it a likely hoax. However, the question remains. Are we disbelieving it because it is American girls that are for sale? Because, I am pretty damn sure they exist, whether on the net or IRL, these companies. Bride prices ARE still being paid. Women ARE still being sold off in arranged marriages. The closer a society perceives its individuals as being equal to each other, the more disturbed it will be by things of this nature. However, other societies are still being viewed as "other" and it is humanity as a whole that must grow disturbed by things of this nature, no matter to whom it is happening. The more inclusive we get, the better off all people will be. That goes for animals, regardless of the sentience question... because if you aren't equal to another person in the eyes of society, you are being considered in a spectrum that includes animals and beings considered non-sentient.

The episode of Star Trek, The Next Generation, where Data is on trial to determine his humanity is a perfect example of this. The decision of expanding the concept of "do unto others" as well as the concept of 'I am both myself, and the other.'

Date: 2007-09-10 04:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dirkcjelli.livejournal.com
The "age of reason" is 13-- the age at which your sins "count" in some theologies.

Date: 2007-09-10 04:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] semiotic-pirate.livejournal.com
I believe I will post about that next... Society's various ways of defining the "Age of Reason."

Strange how there are so many different theories about it.

Date: 2007-09-10 04:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kadath.livejournal.com
"Half + 7" is Victorian crap. It's from Little Women, and refers to the ideal age of a wife relative to her husband.

Date: 2007-09-10 04:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] semiotic-pirate.livejournal.com
Interesting. Thanks for the source. Wasn't the author a feminist though? Victorian feminist, but still, a feminist right?

Trying to figure out the basis of why such rules are made, why and how they change over time, and how they affect the way society looks at itself is interesting to me.

Date: 2007-09-10 04:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kadath.livejournal.com
Later in life, yes. No idea what her political leanings were at the time, but her father was a noted Transcendentalist, and her family was active in the abolitionist movement.

Profile

semiotic_pirate: (Default)
semiotic_pirate

April 2017

S M T W T F S
       1
2 345 6 7 8
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 2nd, 2025 09:50 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios