The Age of Innocence

“I was a daisy fresh girl and look what you've done to me.” (Lolita)

I saw an article in the local paper the other day about alleged sexual relations between a high school teacher and a student. As per usual, there was outrage. Sure, the student was 16 or 17 while the teacher was something like 33, but what’s the big deal? Don’t get me wrong, I ain’t defending pedos here. It’s just that we heard of lots of relationships where a senior citizen is with someone more than 18 years younger and we don’t scoff at these relationships (at least not in the same way that we do those like that involving the abovementioned teacher). So what’s the big deal with the one and not the other?

I think most people think the differentiating quality is that the student/teacher relationship is one of trust and authority. But is that really all? I’ve heard of professors fornicating with first year undergrads and that tends to garner the same sort of response as the Hugh Hefner-plus-playmates type relationships rather than something similar to the teacher/student response. With the prof-esque relationship the one party is only a couple hundred days older than her high school counterpart. And, the prof has a position of trust and authority not unlike that of a high school teacher. So, surely, a position of trust and authority can’t be that which grounds our moral outrage. So what makes us boo-hiss the teacher/student relationship but not the professor/undergrad relationship?

It seems that the younger people are the greater significance we place on an age gap (when talking about romantic relations). After all, a 17 or 18 year old who dates a 15 year old is going to muster a different reaction from the 15 year old’s mommy than the kind of reaction a 27 year old would get out of the parents of a 22 year old. As we get older, an age gap just seems to matter less. So maybe it has something to do with maturity and autonomy. These are things that come in degrees and, as we get older, we tend to gain more of each. As such it just so happens that we think the younger someone is the less mature and autonomous they are; meaning the younger they are the more they need to be protected (since immature people who are only somewhat autonomous need to be protected). Maybe that’s what our moral repugnance towards age gaps involving teenagers is based on. If so, that seems to suggest that, after all, trust and authority ARE a key part – insofar as anyone older than some sweet young thing is in a de facto position of trust and authority in virtue of an absence of maturity and autonomy in the younger partner. So, in older pairings (e.g. the prof/undergrad) the fact that it's a relationship of trust and authority is outweighed by enough maturity and autonomy.

Although, even if this is right, it can’t be the whole story. That is, it doesn’t get us an explanation as to why we’ve set the late teens as the benchmark for when someone can (more) legitimately get involved with an older person. That age just seems so arbitrary. Why, after all, is the age of 18 significant for things, like going to fight a war, consuming alcohol and tobacco, and being involved in the production of pornography?

Really, it’s not. Sure, we could ask why not 17? Or 19? They’d work just as well. But that’s not the point. The point is that, for the law to work, a specific focal point is required. That age is just a focal point – a benchmark agreed upon by convention because some benchmark was necessary. When we talk about other things – like when it becomes socially acceptable to date someone younger than you – something so precise isn’t necessary. We can make due with a vaguer focal point. So, I think, the arbitrariness of the late teens turns out to not be such a big deal.

It seems to me that our need for some kinds of focal point, coupled with the fact that older folk are always in a position of trust and authority with younger once, explains our attitudes towards the aged romancing the fresh. Our inability to clearly identify which cases are repugnant and which are just unsettling stems from the vague nature of our focal point. But that’s ok; we don't need to draw a fine line. It's ok for us to boo-hiss the teacher/students, shrug at the Hugh Hefners, and be uncertain about the prof/undergrads. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. I fear that wasn't as clear as it needed to be. It's just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.