http://www.nbc12.com/story/29126999/morrissey-myrna-girlfriend-want-marriage-more-kids

http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-morrissey-20150521-story.html

http://freebeacon.com/politics/57-year-old-joe-morrissey-now-says-he-will-marry-teen-mother-of-his-child/

On the one hand he is taking responsibility for his actions and is marrying the girl. On the other hand, she was legally under age -- in Virginia, the age of consent is eighteen and sex with a fifteen to seventeen year old is a misdemeanor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Virginia

This young woman does not appear to have been coerced and her relationship was consensual. What does this tell us about young women -- girls really -- in polygamy?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2015 12:31PM by anybody.

It tells us that pedatory older men will groom girls into thinking this is ok behavour.

Agree + 1000 Itz!

This sage may wish to bless her life with wisdom. Why do so many folks jump to awful conclusions these days?

You're joking, right?

Alternately: Gross!

I took that comment as sarcasme

Noble Lie is an oxymoron.

Noble Perversion is an oxymoron x millions.

I'm not making any comment specifically about the situation as I am unfamiliar with it. But if anybody is justifying apparently aberrant behaviour by labelling it "noble", that gets my attention.

Let's think of loftier things, like education, family and Biblical matters.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/four-of-six-homeschooled-brothers-plead-guilty-to-molesting-their-sister-while-anti-school-parents-did-nothing/

We are free here to consider whichever matters we wish, within the guidelines of Admin.

Both sex and the conduct of leaders are fit topics for ex-Mormons to discuss. When it concerns leaders and sex together, even more so.

What is not a major reason for the board to exist is the discussion of "Biblical matters". That may come up here and there but not in a Bible study sort of way. If that's what you want, you're better off looking in a different place.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2015 12:38PM by Nightingale.

"Gutter"...what are you some sort of idiot?

An online friend revealed to our AOL group that she, a mother of two late teen daughters, had begun dating their father, a medical doctor, when he was in his late 20s and she was a mid-teen. They went a bit over two years NEVER having sex, but doing everything else.

Not that I'd know, because I am keeping myself mission-worthy (just in case), but apparently there are lots of things to do besides insert tab A into slot A.

Would it change anything if they were 'intimate', but never had that mystical, ghawd-governed, tab A into slot A?

If we talked to her when she is maybe 40, she might not think the same way.

Her brain hasn't even fully developed yet and can't completely comprehend what she's getting into. When she's still in her prime (if this marriage lasts that long) he'll be an old man, likely with health problems. She'll spend the best years`of her life caring both for him and their children. If this makes her happy, bully for her, but my instinct tells me otherwise.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2015 01:58PM by Itzpapalotl.

It is not clear in the articles whether they in fact had sex prior to her reaching the age of consent. If so, then certainly he can be, and should be, punished.

If they didn't...then the law presumes that the woman is a free agent, and can do with her body what she pleases. If that means remaining a virgin, she can; if that means marrying a 92 year old, she can; if that means having sex with her 57 year old boss, she can. If that means experimenting with lesbianism, she can. The law is silent on that, and probably rightly so.

That being the case, presuming their sex was consensual and legal, on what grounds should she or her partner be faulted? And would we fault a 57 year old female legislator for bedding her 18 year old male employee? What if they were both lesbians?

These sorts of relationships might be unusual. But are they unjust? Pronouncing them unjust seems to require a kind of moral hubris which I can't find any basis for in reason or evidence. It's not that I'm particularly in *favour* of any such thing; it's just that I don't know of any basis on which to object to them, and am therefore, indifferent to them.

By the way, an earlier generation might have viewed their relationship as unjust not because of the age gap, but because he is white, and she is black. But my point is that *that* is the same sort of judgment: an expression of a baseless moral hubris - a condemnation of a sexual union between two consenting adults just because of someone's personal prejudice.

I myself could not care less whether consenting adults remain celibate together, are gay together, sleep together five times a day, are of two different races, or are sixty years apart. Who cares? Why busy ourselves with hyper-judgmentalism from afar, like Dana Carvey's "Church Lady"?

I say, as long as they are consenting adults, let them be, and let's worry about our own problems.

Itzpapalotl:

Announcing that a nineteen year old woman's "brain hasn't fully developed yet" would serve as the basis for denying her all sorts of rights. Think it through, will ya? One of those rights would be the right to abort - a matter of far greater stakes than the matter of mere sexual intercourse. Another might be the right to vote. There are many others.

And you fussing about his potential health problems - who cares? What business is it of yours? Let the guy die tomorrow - who cares? It's her life. She's nineteen. You really think she's not smart enough to understand that *an older partner might have health problems?*

Stop doing the Dana Carvey Church Lady thing.

Not having the pre-frontal cortex fully developed leads to all sorts decisions that seemed great at the time. Don't you remember being 19 and doing dumb things that sound like fantastic?

Is she a legal adult? Yes. She can make her own decisions, but something makes me wonder if he groomed her as a minor. He was her boss while she was a minor and there's a question of power imbalance here. If they didn't want speculation about their relationship, they should have kept it out of the media.

Why do I care? Because I've seen this happen many times with women I know and it often ends tragically. If you think it comes from some moralistic prudery, you are mistaken. How 'bout you stop telling me what I can and can't do?

Itzpalotl: You are perfectly free to reprise Dana Carvey's "Church Lady" act on here if you want. I certainly can't stop you. I am only suggesting that it's unbecoming, and is only an inverted image of Mormon Relief Society sniping, and helps make life suck for everyone who's not doing everything in your "one true way" because they have very different needs than you.

Once you get out of your university brainwashing classes (which I assume you're in, because that's the Holy Temple of Secular Church Lady-ism), you will find that people - you know, human beings - come in many different forms, and therefore, find joy in human relationships in many different ways.

And you fill find that for many, "relationship power balance" is not a consideration, because for them, other things are far more important: romance, security, belonging, devotion, fidelity, direction, clarity, novelty, or a hundred other things. And you will even find that those people don't *want* to start thinking about "power balances", because that will help disrupt something they already find beautiful and fulfilling. And you will find no good grounds for thinking those people have been "brainwashed" any more than you, or anyone else, has been. What you will find instead is a multiplicity of different need profiles, which may or may not have arisen from all different sorts of influences, biological and non-biological.

To assume that "power imbalance", however you might personally define it, is, or ought to be, the most important value in a relationship represents just another expression of "one-true-itis". And even if we granted that it is "the one true most important value", it is pretty much impossible to measure from the outside. Bullying knows no age or sex, and is not necessarily overt anyway; and what goes on behind closed doors might be quite different to what we can observe from the outside.

In the end, I'd just say: how about we just live and let live?

Just my two cents.

Legal ≠ Not Icky

I'm happy to judge a 57 year old man having sex with a 19 year old young woman. Or a 57 year old woman having sex with a 19 year old young woman.

And you're right, there are nuances and divergent personalities aplenty in these situations. But like Itz says, patterns and past are often reliable portends of the future.

As I recall in several threads, when I disagree with your POV or advice, you go off on a bizarre tangent about why I'm wrong and you're right. IMO, you're oblivious to your own prejudices.

I see this issue from a different way and it has little to do with my "university brainwashing classes" and clearly you have little capacity to understand why I see these issues the way I do and I don't care to explain it to you or educate you. I especially enjoy how you make the assumption that I don't know all kinds of people and their needs.

People can live their lives they way they choose, but that's not going to stop people from commenting or having their own view of the situation. You don't like it, tough. You don't want a snipey response, then I suggest you don't engage me in threads.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2015 04:50PM by Itzpapalotl.

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You really think she's not smart enough to understand that an olderpartner might have health problems?

Understanding it and living it are two different things. My mom lived it and was widowed in her early 40s. She paid a heavy price and so did I.

Summer - I am very sorry you suffered because of your mother's decision; but your mother, like the rest of us, made a decision. It's no one else's right to go tell someone who they should, or should not, fall in love with, or sleep with, or marry. That's the sort of thing that religions like Mormonism do...and on what basis do they claim to know better than we do?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2015 06:20PM by Tal Bachman.

I guess my point is that it's all abstract until the reality/consequences hit. Then it's all too real.

For myself, I'm not going to complain too much. I had great parents. After my dad died, my mom was too grief-stricken to care for me. Very fortunately, I had a much older brother who was able to take me in. I don't know what would have happened to me otherwise. It might have gotten ugly quickly.

I think I can say with confidence that my father's death when I was young affected me profoundly. It may be why I never married nor achieved my full professional potential. To this day I very much miss having had an adult relationship with my dad. As part of the generation of women who entered the workforce in large numbers, I think he could have provided a lot of guidance to me.

To me, it is beyond irresponsible for a 57-year old man to marry a teen. I'm not opposed to age differences, but I can certainly make a judgment about their decision.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2015 06:31PM by summer.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess my point is that it's all abstract until
> the reality/consequences hit. Then it's all too
> real.

That's pretty much what I think, too.

Guess everyone better start thinking the same way, right Tal?

Also to add, it's not the 19 year old marrying a 57 year old is what raised the eyebrows. It's the concern that an older boss used his power to groom a minor into a sexual relationship.

God, I have the most superior, church-lady morals. How awful of me. It MUST be Satan in all of this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2015 06:41PM by Itzpapalotl.

As I said, if you commit statutory rape, prison awaits. No problems there by me. For extreme abuses, like child molesting, they could fry the perps for all I care, seriously.

But I think when it comes to consenting adults, things change. There, I think we ought to be reluctant to pass judgment. I don't think society needs any more know-it-all scolds running around tut-tutting everyone, telling everyone about how they're doing everything wrong. I think "live and let live" is a far better way of proceeding. Just my two cents.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2015 02:21PM by Tal Bachman.

What the heck Tal?

So if a 19 year old young man has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, you're okay if he's sent to jail for the same?

But if a 57 year old man has sex with a 19 year old woman, you cry foul when some of us see hints of lecherous and predatory overtones to his behavior.

Because don't judge.

Huh?

Tal is defensive about this issue because his girlfriend is twenty-something... about the age of his oldest kid.

I'm not at all defensive. I said the same thing when I was married to a woman nearly my age, the same thing when I was single, and I'll say the same thing even if I marry an eighty year old next week. Tut-tutting Church-Lady-ism sucks, and how consenting adults find relationship happiness shouldn't be shamed by halfwit ideologues, religious or secular.

By the way, my girlfriend's thirty, dipshit.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2015 06:17PM by Tal Bachman.

Yeah Alpiner. Word. We have a bunch of people on here still sitting around just seemingly waiting, hoping, that someone does something that they personally wouldn't do, so they can announce their definitive, absolutist moral judgments on them. They might as well go back to the Mormon church.

HOWEVER, as you say, wherever the line is drawn, if you disobey it - prison. But between consenting adults...different.

No no, girlawakened - you and me both, and everyone else, must simply defer to the superior moral pronouncements of Itzpapalotl, who knows all about exactly what sorts of relationship choices every nineteen year old woman in the world should make.

"When Itzpapalotl speaks, the thinking's been done".

One could say the exact same thing about you, Tal.

I gave my POV and you don't like it for some reason, are fixated on it, and making all sorts of interesting, but inaccurate assumptions about me. Did you even bother to read that I wrote if she's happy, good for her?

Why do you even care what I think it's all half-wit ideologue?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2015 06:24PM by Itzpapalotl.

If everyone's adults, then why the issue? Beyond the ick factor, that is?

We assume an 18-year-old can go to war for his/her country, have sex with other presumably equally stupid/smart 18-year-olds, operate a motor vehicle, own a rifle, and otherwise engage in the range of behaviors known as 'adulthood.'

Thankfully, personal disgust at what people do is not a legitimate grounds to bar them from it, else we'd likely still have all kinds of unjust laws on the books.

Notably, the person in question went to prison for a statutory crime in conjunction with his behavior towards this girl. He took an Alford plea -- which means he acknowledges that there's enough evidence to convict him, but is not quite the same as pleading guilty -- which indicates that he likely did have sex with her when she was underage. Probably when she was 17.

Now, one can reasonably argue about where we should draw the line -- at 18, at 16, at 20 (as some people upthread seem to think that 18-year-olds should not be accountable for their own poor decision-making), but once it's been drawn, I don't think we should let personal disgust lead us to condemn lawful actions, particularly when it comes to what takes place in other people's bedrooms.

I'm with you anybody- "as he is taking responsibility for his actions and is marrying the girl". As for the issue with the difference of age? It's a slippery slope yet it wasn't an abuse of power for sexual favors as it was consensual.

Seems to me that in DC, life moves very quickly and there's a high level of maturity required of the young pages and support network in Congress. Perhaps this is the case.

The District is all about power. Think Monica Lewinsky. This isn't very different.

Oh my. I thought this said 57 year old Virgin politician.

I was just about to ask why is he a virgin at his age (which is none of my business) but then I finally saw the correct thread title. Virginia.

OK, so that is making some sense to me now. Carry on. :)

I read it the same way, Nightingale. I figured it was headlined because he was one of these wacko religious politicians who brags about their virginity, and was finally about to tie the knot to some naive and trusting child.

I was right about the naive and trusting part, anyway.