Is it morally wrong to be infatuated with a much younger girl?
-
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 10 years ago(February 06, 2016 07:20 PM)
when you're my age
May we ask what age that is?
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 10 years ago(March 06, 2016 05:51 PM)
Nice thing about "morals" is that "immoral behavior" usually only "offends the values" of the person making the allegation and no real harm is done to anyone unless the person affected [Angela] is SWAYED by such morals and becomes a maladjusted person sexually, ie over the hill at 17 [as in Jean Brodie].
But cunning thing is Mendes shows behaviour of the same Angela in control of a car while smoking pot, a practice that can cause death to various innocent people [including Angela].
BUT because that does not involve sexual matters it is not Carefully Taught in schools as being immoral.
It's just the Beauty.
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
Pierre_D — 10 years ago(March 16, 2016 11:10 AM)
You need to decide this on your own. I have friends that have a 20-30 year gap and they are married and have kids (She was 23 he was 47). There are going to be eyebrows raised when this happens but if both are adults and consenting you just roll with the punches. In their case it was super dicey since I think the age of consent is 21 in the States (or some states?) so probably best to leave that in the "fantasy land" area.
-
lubin-freddy — 10 years ago(March 17, 2016 01:50 AM)
No. Nothing you
feel
is morally wrong. We have social agreements as to behaviour, which is the foundation of morality. That's another matter.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 10 years ago(March 17, 2016 11:31 PM)
We
have social agreements as to behaviour
And that ranges from sensible to stupid depending on the WE.
Remember Mendes is showing his version of Lolita Haze [as Angela Hayes] just 2 years after the 1997 version of Lolita proved exactly how stupid "morals" have become in america.
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
Gwasgray — 9 years ago(April 11, 2016 04:43 PM)
I suppose it's not immoral if the love is truly mutual, but it's very frowned upon. The generally held belief is an underage teenage girl is too emotionally immature compared to a grown man and he's most likely manipulating her or using her.
-
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 9 years ago(June 15, 2016 04:16 PM)
according to the original "wimmens libbers" [small f feminists] the aim was to "empower" themselves using sex as the bait, and it worked.
so we see the "free love" Lolita character of 1960s morphed into the identical [Hayes/Haze] character Angela 30 years later BUT so preoccupied with using sex as a method of advancement that she is just a frigid virgin, over the hill at just 18.
Lester was her only chance but fag kills him.
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
kayleighlaylaparker — 9 years ago(December 13, 2016 05:21 AM)
It isn't morally wrong as infatuation cannot be helped and typically does not last long (infatuation is the earliest phase of romantic relationships and usually lasts up to two years maximum).
What can be an issue is the imbalance of power.
A younger partner can sometimes be drawn to an older partner as an emotional/intellectual crutch. Their relationship may prevent them from embarking on typical developmental milestones (gaining independence/autonomy). If the relationship is healthy and respectful it is not an issue but the intentions of many men hankering for younger women are purely sexual and often on some level about power/control.