Member Discussions

Hello everyone,
This is my first post here, but I found this situation similar to a previous one of my own. You see, I used to play a roleplaying game called dragon realms, when I was 15, playing this game, I became involved with a woman who was in her early 20s. Living in the state of Maine, the laws were somewhat restricting.

We planned early on to eventually marry, and are now (with me being 20 and her 25) engaged to be married. We did not commit any illegal acts such as cyber sex and the like, we simply roleplayed a relationship. So there was never a necessity of a warning or a banning.

In my own opinion, since the younger involved is a male, the general american population would not be TOO greatly concerned. Although I have heard of similar situations where the elder was a woman and had to deal with a law suit.

I find such a thing to be morally disgusting, and quite frankly, sad. Law suits at the drop of a hat are one thing that bother me about my country. A fifteen year old male has the intelligence, and normally the right state of mind to know exactly what they are doing. Despite the laws of the land, I see nothing morally incorrect with a relationship such as this. Unless one party intends to use it as a means to harm the other, or increase their own wealth with a lawsuit, which would not surprise me.

Now as for what you should do as an administrator, I'd have to say that depends on their actions. If they are openly having cybersex, or being VERY vulgar and explicit about their relationship, I would say ban them. If that isn't a problem, then I do not believe you are morally, ethically, or by any other means bound to do anything about it. It is after all a *game*.

But since you have been receiving complaints, I think it would be wise to speak with both involved and at least ask them to use caution. It is unfortunate that you have to do even that, since those complaining do not appear to have any business doing so, unless they came upon the two openly doing something vulgar.

Overall, it is a decision that (in my opinion) you should make as a person, rather than simply as an administrator. How do *you* personally feel about the situation? If it becomes too open or... well, you get the idea, then something will have to be done, if not, I don't see what the problem is.

My Father was aware of my relationship with an older woman from the beginning, and was always supportive, if cautiously so. Cautious meaning that he simply warned me against engaging in sexual activities. And when it comes down to it, that is their business, so long as they keep it to themselves. If they let others know, then they should be aware of the consequences (never kiss and tell).

I guess I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said, but I wanted to add my two cents, being someone who has had a *very* similar situation in the past. Hope it helps.


Sincerely,
David

I agree with those of you who say, "It isn't your concern" because it isn't.

Being in a relationship with a minor is not illegal. Being in a SEXUAL relationship with a minor is.

Please note the difference.

To agree with another, if no laws are being broken, then you don't need to and shouldn't interfere. If you meddle, all I can see happening is you losing players. Just as AOL isn't liable for paedophiles stalking children using it's software (and I apologise for being so blunt) you are not liable for anything as a MUD administrator, well, at least not where I live (which is Scotland) but I don't think the law can differ too much on this...

One thing I don't understand is why that kind of relationship is illegal anyway being that in the old days, kids would be married and popping out kids as soon as they were able to give birth. I know that we are more "civilized" now but to me I think we are more barbaric. but anyway I'm getting off topic so I'm ending this post.

>As for the illegality of their relationship that is entirely up to the minors parents.

No, illegality is determined by the law.

>You can't in any way be held responsible for their actions

Yes, he can, depending on the law.

E

One of the reasons for age laws is to prevent/prohibit abuse or manipulation of impressionable children by adults.

This ties in with the -fact- that adolescents and teens are still going through puberty and as such, are not -emotionally- mature. That doesn't mean that there exists no adolescent in the entire world who is capable of handling a long-term adult relationship. But by far, the majority of young adults, still going through puberty, are not.

And as such, the adult community is charged with protecting these adolescents and young teenagers from their own hormones. This isn't a cut against kids. Kids are SUPPOSED to be hormonally charged. But when you add adult activities such as sex to the pot, you are asking for burnt stew. The fact that you might end up with a decent meal is coincidence, and not to be expected.

As far as suing people goes - I'd want to see a few parents getting sued, if anything, for not monitoring their childrens' activities better. Why are kids allowed to have computers in their bedrooms? A child's bedroom is for sleeping in, not for stimulating their minds, or any other part of their person. And if Junior -does- have a computer in his bedroom, why is mom allowing him to use it with the door closed?

Junior doesn't have a "right" to privacy in his parent's house. He has only a right to privacy from the government. Parents need to crack down on their kids' behavior and stop being so permissive, tolerant, and "understanding." Junior has no business having cybersex with an adult, nor does he have any business having real sex with a girl his own age, if he's only 15 years old. He is still emotionally and hormonally a CHILD.

Being in a relationship with a minor is not illegal. Being in a SEXUAL relationship with a minor is.

Please note the difference.

The problem is that any relationship with a minor can be considered to have the potential to lead to a sexual relationship.

It makes about as much sense as the Mormon belief that all homosexuality starts with masturbation, and all masturbation inevitably leads to exhibitionism and homosexuality.

-FireCat

This ties in with the -fact- that adolescents and teens are still going through puberty and as such, are not -emotionally- mature.

I'm not seeing the connection here. Where is it defined when puberty ends, and that emotional maturity is gained at this time?

And as such, the adult community is charged with protecting these adolescents and young teenagers from their own hormones. This isn't a cut against kids. Kids are SUPPOSED to be hormonally charged. But when you add adult activities such as sex to the pot, you are asking for burnt stew. The fact that you might end up with a decent meal is coincidence, and not to be expected.

The beliefs that children need to be "protected from themselves", that sex is an "adult activity", and that kids having sex will naturally turn out "burnt" are scientifically unsound.

Junior has no business having cybersex with an adult, nor does he have any business having real sex with a girl his own age, if he's only 15 years old. He is still emotionally and hormonally a CHILD.

If the cybersex enables Junior to explore his sexuality through fantasies, it has its place. And what does "CHILD" mean? That his sexual development, ongoing for 15+ years [yes, fetuses have been observed "masturbating" in the womb], is beyond his ability to understand or control, and he therefore has no business in studying it?

If he's not ready, ask why not. Ever hear of a self-fulfilling prophecy? If his parents brought him up in total ignorance of his own sexuality, of course he is not going to be ready - and while many parents in the US [especially Catholic Christians] believe that abstinence until marriage is the ONLY way [not the best, just the ONLY] and that teaching their children about sex [such as SAFE sex instead of NO sex, how to prevent pregnancies/STD's, etcetera] will only encourage promiscuity, despite the fact that not a single study has found scientifically sound data to support the effectiveness of abstinence programs, and many studies have found evidence that teaching children safe, responsible sex actually works to decrease the rates of both sex itself, and the pregnancies/STD's.

-FireCat

(Comment added by FireCat on Fri Sep 12 17:08:11 2003)

Footnote:

My source for the last paragraph is a joint declaration released a couple of years back - you can see a copy here.

(Comment added by FireCat on Fri Sep 12 17:17:15 2003)

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has also reported, recently, that it could find "no reliable evidence" that abstinence programs work. On the very same day, however, the Energy and Commerce Committee overwhelmingly voted to spend 50 million dollars of taxpayers' money [gee, am I glad I don't pay American taxes *grin*] on telling kids not to screw. Apparently, it was decided that they were best equipped to handle the debate on funding sex "education". I'll leave it up to you to research the matter [perhaps to find which other Committees might have been better suited for such a task?] and decide for yourself the criteria used in selecting a group to "debate" the matter.

>The beliefs that children need to be "protected from themselves", that sex is an "adult activity", and that kids having sex will naturally turn out "burnt" are scientifically unsound.

As far as I know, most modern psychology does indeed seem to concur that the psyche requires a certain time to develop -and that humans are generally not mentally adequately mature to 'survive' in the world until the age of 19-22, and there's still considerable developement until the age of 28-34. If you have other information, please cite. Also note that the original comment was about relationships in general, not just sex.

I'm all for demystification of and openness about sexuality (up to a point -I think the secrecy makes it more fun.)

If you don't amusedly think how you were foolish, naive and ignorant five years ago, it's probably because you're still foolish, naive and ignorant.

E

Looking back at the original post, I see that there was no mention of cybersex. I guess that was an assumption my part when I read "sinister overtones" in the sentence.

So what does "sinister overtones" mean in this case?

But, having a daughter of 13 and having been 15 once, I know that a boy of 15 wanting a 25 y/o woman is normal. However, an emtionally mature 25 year old woman being interested in a 15 year old boy to the extent of marriage is outright bizarre. I wish the boy well because he's hooked up with a crazy one.

Why do you think it's so bizarre? I do not believe that love is something that is bound by age... in my own situation I will soon be getting married to that crazy 20 year old I met five years ago. I have to say though, you sound somewhat like my Father sounded at the time. He was supportive, but he had his doubts (well, a lot of them, really).

Sleeping together is one thing, but planning a long-term commited, more than likely long-distance relationship between the two of them is something I find admirable, their age difference will not matter so much five years from now.


Just my two cents,
David

This ties in with the -fact- that adolescents and teens are still going through puberty and as such, are not -emotionally- mature. That doesn't mean that there exists no adolescent in the entire world who is capable of handling a long-term adult relationship. But by far, the majority of young adults, still going through puberty, are not.

So are you saying that we should marginalize all adolescents who are emotionally mature because their peers are not? Or do you want to propose some sort of objective criteria instead?

Why are kids allowed to have computers in their bedrooms? A child's bedroom is for sleeping in, not for stimulating their minds, or any other part of their person. And if Junior -does- have a computer in his bedroom, why is mom allowing him to use it with the door closed?

Junior doesn't have a "right" to privacy in his parent's house.

Wow. Then why give them bedrooms at all -- why not just force all the children to sleep on cots in a common room where they can be observed day and night?

An environment where privacy is respected is essential for forming an adolescent's sense of self. If they have no privacy in their own homes, they'll just go somewhere they do. That, or they'll go be with their peers because they'd rather be watched by them than by someone they feel is restricting their behavior. If a minor can not handle themselvers appropriately in a situation where their parents are not constantly looking over their shoulders, how do you expect them to handle themselves when they go off to College?

Parents that micromanage their children's lives inevitably wonder why their children are not well-equipped to handle the world when this management suddenly stops. Is there any reason to wonder why this is so? There is ample correlation between restrictive families and dependance and immaturity in adulthood.

Parents need to crack down on their kids' behavior and stop being so permissive, tolerant, and "understanding."

I wish you could grow up with a Chinese family so that you would realize how important these traits are. Cracking down on those three things is an essential duty if one wishes to make the child an exact clone of the parent.

Yui Unifex

*nods* I agree with your latter point on the Mormon belief - I don't feel that the potential for something to happen means that it actually will.

Potentially, I could smash my monitor with a sledgehammer.

Thankfully I don't want to :p

And 'The Daybreakers' does not count. ;)

Kitkat

How about a Mormon pamphlet?

Over two decades ago, the "Love vs. Lust" stated "Masturbation is the introduction of the more serious sin of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality." - in a 2001 speech by the same name, Spencer W. Kimball [who wrote that fragment of the original pamphlet] reworded this to "Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality.", probably because of the 1982 suicide of Kip Eliason.

-FireCat

Thank you.

(He kinda makes ya nostalgic for the simple days of 'if you do it, you'll go blind')

Er, no offense to anyone but isn't Kimball like...ancient by now?

Kitkat - searching for an 'evil evil smile' smiley

Also note that the original comment was about relationships in general, not just sex.

Unfortunately, any relationship with a minor in the US or fundamental Christian communities is typically considered equivalent to a sexual relationship.

I'm all for demystification of and openness about sexuality (up to a point -I think the secrecy makes it more fun.)

For who, the male?

The secrecy, creating the allure of a temple, grotto, shrine, sanctuary, etcetera . . . little seems more desirable to men than that which has never belonged to anyone else [mountain-climbers prove this dying each year, seeking to visit the peaks noone else has been to before], and sadly, this does add to the thrill of taking a virgin - but there's no such excitement for the female, who [having been taught by society that she must "preserve herself" in order to attract a good husband, since noone likes "used goods"] has denied herself even masturbation to remain "pure" [except in Sudan, where {at 8 years old} her *CENSORED* is sewn shut to KEEP her pure until the wedding night where her groom CUTS it open, and ALL sexual pleasures are denied FOR her - permanently - by slicing off her clitoris and labia with a razor, both the sewing and cutting of all kinds being done without any anesthesia . . . ], learns from her FIRST sexual experience, of any kind, that it hurts and there's no fun in it [because the boy has time enough for his own pleasure, but not time enough for hers, and goes to sleep as soon as he's done, leaving her to wonder if the secrecy was really worth it . . . [NO!].

If you don't amusedly think how you were foolish, naive and ignorant five years ago, it's probably because you're still foolish, naive and ignorant.

This is itself an ignorant and prejudiced statement, declaring that for all age groups, NOT being amused at how foolish, naive, and ignorant you were as little as five years ago means you are STILL the same.

Having such contempt for self at all times does NOT have any healthy place in a self-respecting person - it is UNhealthy to have the right to respect oneself based upon, let alone derived from, an inwardly-directed contemptous attitude.

-FireCat

Er, no offense to anyone but isn't Kimball like...ancient by now?

I recall reading that he died. I'll look it up and add a footnote.

(Comment added by FireCat on Fri Sep 12 15:06:58 2003)

Really weird. It seems he died on November 5th . . . in 1985.

I'll double-check my sources, but I suspect the speech in 2001 was either a "collection of things he said", or a quotation of him. In either case, it would raise the possibility that he never actually said "sometimes", and it was a misquotation.

-FireCat

(Comment added by FireCat on Fri Sep 12 15:13:08 2003)

And there's reference made to a "Sister" Kimball, but maybe she's his daughter, because the reference to 2001 [a copyright notice] states also:

In order to provide maximum time for Elder Kimball this morning, I am not going to spend time in this introduction, but merely state that Elder Kimball, in connection with his many other responsibilities as a General Authority, is chairman of the Church Indian Committee and is a great friend and supporter of the Lamanites throughout the world.

Okay, the original speech was given in 1965 (and aren't we jealous we missed it-shiver) but they must have printed it out in 2001. They referred to him as 'Elder' here but he was a 'prophet' later on. (late 70's/early 80's)

(Sister Kimball would likely have been his wife, though in 65 it could refer to an unmarried daughter or maybe a daughter-in-law.)

Whoa, he really got 'fired up' with the speech. (grin)

Kitkat - fighting the urge to quote Wordsworth

Okay, the original speech was given in 1965 (and aren't we jealous we missed it-shiver) but they must have printed it out in 2001.

There must have also been pamphlets before then, since my source for the report on Kip was copyrighted 1997/1998, and they could hardly have quoted a pamphlet that wasn't printed out then. Also, that speech seems too long for handing out.

-FireCat

(Comment added by FireCat on Fri Sep 12 17:09:34 2003)

Plus I backtracked for another footnote.

I imagine many near my age (32) would look upon a relationship like that with a healthy dose of skepticism. Not that a healthy 15yo/25yo relationship is not possible, but that probably 90% of those you find are not so pure in nature. Probably the worst thing is when the youngster gets used and tossed away by the older person once the "butterflies" phase is over. Love is funny intangible and fickle thing. And having a daughter close to 15, I see her starting to become interested in anything with a heart beat. You can watch her spend 5 minutes with someone new and for the next few days she is completely smitten and acts like she has met her one true love. We go through this about every 2 weeks with her, hehe. But, as such, she could easily be manipulated by someone fairly savvy. Until she grows up more, anyone more than a few years older than her or someone her age acting lie perhaps they are a bit too mature for their age (the 15yo playboy type) showing unusual interest is gonna have to get past me and my wife first. I don't think that is an unusual nor inappropriate protective response.

But, I hope it works out in the end for those two folks. I really hope they exercise discretion and perhaps abstinence until the youngster is a bit older, because judges/juries in the United States have zero sense of humor when it comes to sex between adults and minors. It tends to give older folks the creeps and summons images of predatory pedophiles (whether actually true of not of course). However those images sway courts in a big way. Statutory rape is a big deal in the US, that's how you get registered as a sex offender. Twice already this year, our kids came home from school with a letter from the Police Dept. saying a registered sex offender has moved into the neighborhood and containing a "Tips to keep your child safe" pamphlet.

>For who, the male?

>The secrecy, creating the allure of a temple, grotto, shrine, sanctuary, etcetera --

OK.. one word: issues.

I just, personally, rather read a new book than one I've already read. And no stupid extensions of that statement, please.

>This is itself an ignorant and prejudiced statement, declaring that for all age groups, NOT being amused at how foolish, naive, and ignorant you were as little as five years ago means you are STILL the same.

Yup. A person should grow and learn every day.

E

Yup. A person should grow and learn every day.

More - but the process shouldn't mandate so utterly changing your mind from what you previously believed, that in five years you look back on what you knew, what you believed, and who you were with contempt. The process shouldn't involve learning to look back on everything you once were as bad/wrong. I know where I've been, and I know where I'm going, and I'm proud of both. I may not be proud of everything, but this consistency in the values I hold permits me to "grow" more than 5 years' worth of maturity - something I couldn't do if I considered nothing 5+ years back to intelligent/wise/informed.

-FireCat

(Comment added by FireCat on Fri Sep 12 23:49:58 2003)

Insert a "be" in that last fragment so it reads "years back to be".

A good foundation gives me something durable to build on - I can grow throughout my life, instead of considering everything I was 5+ years back to be anti-growth or "not something worth building on".

(Comment added by FireCat on Sat Sep 13 2:00:47 2003)

It also might have to do with repression. I don't support self-denial; I believe in utter, unadulterated honesty. I'm able to accept everything about myself as simple fact, and because of that, I don't become overwhelmed with shame, or wallow in guilt, because of it. So, I don't feel compelled to separate myself [of now] from myself [of "5" years ago, or however long ago] to evade such feelings of guilt or shame.

Its not illegal if all they are doing is talking. Remember
the first amendment? You can talk about what ever you like
in the States and its still legal. If they are just
talking they ARE legal. Now if it goes against your mud
policy thats another thing, but only you can interpret that
and it has little to do with ethics or legality. If its
against the rules, its against the rules and you should
enforce those rules.

Personally, my instinct would be nose out. Its none of my
business and they may do as they please. Just my 2 cents.
Alcon

Sorry AdamMil, but your post kinda ticked me off. Look if
the older woman is seducing the kid, that is one thing.
But I find that doubtable. Its possible that it is just a
normal boyfriend/girlfriend relationship. In which case,
there is no danger to either. They have already said that
they are doing what they can to stay legal. Relationships
with large gaps between the ages are not always bad. And
neither is deciding to marry young. I know couples who
decided to marry while juniors or seniors in high school,
and theres nothing wrong with that. I also know people, my
grandparents for one, who married despite large gaps in
years(almost 10 in their case, a little less than this one)
and lead fine fullfilling happy lives! They are not
illegal(from what you've said), and in all probability
niether of them means any harm to the other.

If they are annoying your other players by having cybersex,
or the like, then ask them to keep off the global channels.
It is your mud though, and in the end the decision is
yours. If it makes you uncomfortable, take what ever
action you deem necesary.
Alcon

(Comment added by Alcon on Sat Sep 13 0:41:40 2003)

The 'you'/'your' in the second paragraph refers to
klien007.
Alcon

'I imagine many near my age (32) would look
upon a relationship like that with a healthy
dose of skepticism.'

'And having a daughter close to 15...'

Just to kind of point something out: Your
stated age: 32, Your daughters stated age: 14
(almost 15). 32 - 14 = 18 as of her birth.
THAT means conception at 17 years old. Anybody
else see a problem with this fact when put next
to what he is has been saying?

'As far as I know, most modern psychology does
indeed seem to concur that the psyche requires
a certain time to develop -and that humans are
generally not mentally adequately mature to
'survive' in the world until the age of 19-22,
and there's still considerable developement
until the age of 28-34.' - Ero

Your stated age 32... 'Nuf said.

If you are speaking out of personal experience,
then I can understand your position, and your
comments might have greater effect if you said
so. We can all do simple math and see what the
deal is.
Alcon
PS If your and your daughters ages are not as
stated, then none of this has any meaning of
course.