I Talked My Daughter's Boyfriend's . . .

by Corvin 16 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  willyloman

  What the hell is happening here? ... This is not the reaction of your average JW...

  What's happening is that the average JW is waking up and starting to think for herself. It's one thing to spend years upholding some pleasant "theory" that's going to lead to you inheriting thousands of acres of prime real estate in beautiful, uncrowded conditions. It's a whole 'nother matter to see your kids grow up and engage in real life. Tends to make one think. That's what's going on here. She's still parroting the party line, but she can't square it with what she sees in the real world around her.

  That's the first step. Nice work on not just planting a seed, but standing your ground and speaking your mind.
• 

  wednesday

  I agree with Scully, try inviting her and the hubby for a family dinner..After all,u might as well get to know possible in laws. then u may see how she reacts. I hope she does not "turn tail" on u and go and report u, weeping and crying that her son is seeing an apostates dgt, and she the JW mother can't forbid him since, maybe the unbelieving father is ok with it. , but u know as well as I that encourging her to not do something is a sure fire way to get here to do it(at this age).It would concern me that she is dating jw carl, even if he is not baptized. He has a lot of infulence from his mom. But i know how kids are. She is almost old enough to legally marry in most states .

  corvin, u are a brave and wonderful father. If more XJW spouces were this brave, we could save more of our children..A father who takes an active role and does not let he JW mother raise the children..

  I guess it just worries me that your dgt. is so close to "touching the unclean thing" to borrow some JW doublespeak as nice a Carl is, his mom is a JW and he will be subjected to that infulence.

  It will be interesting to see where she really stands. Of course, she can always fall back on "my husband made me do it" since here hubby is an unbeliever. They )the elders) may draw the line on socilizing with a known apostate.
• 

  Soledad

  Corvin you're a great father! I wish my parents were like that. mainly my mother. my father is really good, although I couldn't see it that way for a long time due to my moms influence
• 

  NeonMadman

  Getting more to the point, she said that she was also concerned that Carl is 18 while my kid is still 17 until November, and yes, she used the term "jail bait", but in a way that was in no way disrespectful. I was impressed. She further related to me how she ran into my exwife at Walmart the other day, and how my exwife made a very pleasant valed threat with regard to Carl making a move on our daughter. The gist was jail for the boy if he did anything.

  I'm no lawyer, but I believe that in most jurisdictions there is a minimum age gap that must exist between the parties before statutory rape laws can apply, at least in full force. It seems patently absurd that a boy who is 18 years and one day should be jailed for having sex with his girlfriend who is 17 years and 364 days, however, according to the site http://www.ageofconsent.com/california.htm , your daughter's boyfriend might be liable for a misdemeanor charge and a fine if they should have sex. If you think your ex would really press charges, you might want to discuss it with an attorney before anything happens.
• 

  Scully

  NeonMadman writes:

  It seems patently absurd that a boy who is 18 years and one day should be jailed for having sex with his girlfriend who is 17 years and 364 days, however, according to the site http://www.ageofconsent.com/california.htm , your daughter's boyfriend might be liable for a misdemeanor charge and a fine if they should have sex. If you think your ex would really press charges, you might want to discuss it with an attorney before anything happens.

  Yet this is exactly the same line of "reasoning" that the WTS has used here to justify granting Privileges? to an individual who may have a history of child abuse:
  http://www.jw-media.org/region/global/english/backgrounders/e_molestation.htm

  Suppose, for example, that a long time ago a 16-year-old boy had sexual relations with a consenting 15-year-old girl. Depending upon the U.S. jurisdiction where he lived when this happened, elders may have been required to report this as an incident of child abuse. Let us say that 20 years have passed. The child abuse reporting law may have changed; the man may have even married the girl! Both have been living exemplary lives and they are respected. In such a rare case, the man could possibly be appointed to a responsible position within the congregation.

  In Canada, from what I understand, consensual sex between teenagers who are within 2 years of age of each other is not considered a criminal offense or "child molestation".
• 

  funkyderek

  Yet this is exactly the same line of "reasoning" that the WTS has used here to justify granting Privileges? to an individual who may have a history of child abuse:
  http://www.jw-media.org/region/global/english/backgrounders/e_molestation.htm

  To be fair, the reasoning there seems perfectly valid. A 16-year-old who has sex with a 15-year-old is not a child molestor in any reasonable sense. Someone who was convicted of such a "crime" 20 years ago should not be considered a danger to anybody.
• 

  NeonMadman

  To be fair, the reasoning there seems perfectly valid. A 16-year-old who has sex with a 15-year-old is not a child molestor in any reasonable sense. Someone who was convicted of such a "crime" 20 years ago should not be considered a danger to anybody.

  I agree completely. As Scully pointed out, the WTS is citing an extremely unusual situation to justify the far more common one in which an adult molests a child, and is granted privileges again after a "reasonable" (WT-defined) amount of time has passed. The chances of a 16-year-old being prosecuted for having sex with a 15-year-old are pretty remote. I'm sure it happens occasionally, but I think that when it does, other factors are likely present. However, if a 40 year old JW elder molests a 12-year-old publisher, and it comes to the attention of the authorities, the chances of prosecution are very high. The WTS claimed publicly in a WT article in 1997 that such "known child molestors" would be forever barred from holding congregational positions, then reversed themselves a few months later in a secret elders-only letter, which casts grave doubt upon their claim to be sincerely interested in rectifying the problrm in their ranks. Their reasoning is, as you say, completely valid for the particular situation they describe, but the vast majority of actual cases are a completely different story.