Inappropriate age relationships

[Sierra]

You know something....in some parts of the world people practice female genital mutilation. They call it circumcision and its part of their "beliefs".

I don't know any of the people involved and I haven't ever been there.

Still, I know it is wrong. Period.

This poor gal was a teenager when you got her pregnant. You were in your thirties.

That is beyond culpable.

Where the heck were this poor girls parents? Because of your selfish attraction you have now saddled her with a burden it will take her years to escape.

She is leaving you because she is finally maturing and wants to go out and explore the world. You child atractors (your video games) no longer interest her. She probably no longer needs a daddy. She wants a partner.

I hope she has a great time, finds success and is able to make a home for herself and her baby.

You on the other hand....

D

[kitmm]

Hi Sierra,

I just want to respond to you, because I think you're an opinionated, ignorant idiot and your contributions to this board say a lot more about you and your hang-ups than anyone elses'.

Your contributions read as a list of unsupported opinions, with the underlying implication is that Tim is a borderline paedophile, luring some poor unsuspecting little girl into his dirty-old-man's lair with "child atractors" [sic]. Based on some specious and ill-informed assumptions, you seem to regard yourself as some kind of moral crusader, championing the cause of the exploited teenager, no doubt making yourself feel riteous in the process.

Well, in defence of Tim, I'd like respond. Tim has had two serious relationship with women: The one with the (now) 21 year old, and his previous marriage of seven years to a woman two years older than him. You couldn't seriously claim that to be the pattern of some kind of predatory older man.

You also say, "If you loved her THAT much you would have married her. Just what the world needs - another baby born out of wedlock to a young mother." Since when has love been synonymous with marriage. I've been in a commited relationship for five years, and we're not married. My grandparents, on the other hand, were married for over 50 years. And they were miserable for about 49 of them.

And, also, you speak from a position of ignorance on the targetted demographics of video games, your so-called "child atractors". According to the Economist, a recent survey by the Interactive Digital Software Association found that of American that play video games, 61% are adults; 43% are women; and the average age is 28. A 33 year old man with a Playstation is hardly unusual, and not comparable to an old pervert with a trenchcoat stalking a playground with a bag of candy.

And, finally, on what, Sierra, do you base the judgement that "30+ year old men should not be sleeping with teenagers. Period."? By who's degree? Yours? The age of consent is 16 in England, Wales and Scotland. Legalistic facts aside, adult relationship are negotiated between two adult parties -- the implication underlying your contributions, that Tim's partner was somehow exploited, assumes that Tim was in some position of power over his partner by virtue of his age. However, their decision to have a child (as questionable as it might seem to some people) was one made mutually. As immature as she is (and, I agree, having actually met her that she is a typical 21 year old), to imply that she cannot be responsible and accountable for her own decision to have a child is patronising to say the least.

Fundamentally, however, your invective contributions seem to reveal more about your own issues and anxieties than anything else. You obviously speak from the position of some kind of overzealous moralist who equates any non-"age-appropriate" relationship with pathological tendencies. Yes, there are issues to do with immaturity and age difference here; but you are so wide of the mark and so spluttering in your contributions that, frankly, you just come across as some red-necked yank.

I think you need to ask what YOUR problem is. Don't you?

Kit

[Sierra]

Wow. That was impressive. That was a really well-written post.

Right up until the red-necked yank part. Boy did that blow it.

Your entire article presupposes the idea that anyone who disagrees with the original poster is somehow suffering from a problem.

We may disagree. Perhaps relationships like this can work from time to time. The reality is that most normal men in their thirties have little serious interest in teenage girls - at least positive interests.

I bring an alternative view point. That is what a forum is supposed to be about. I have few if any of the problems you describe, but I do draw a hard line and expect people to act rationally and in their best interest.

My "problem" if I have one is that people create these private nightmares and then turn to larger society for a remedy. I promise you before 10 years is up these two will have seen the inside of a courtroom in the UK, using resources that could have been better allocated to others.

Worst of all now there is a child involved who will, in all likelyhood, grow up without many of the resources (emotional, physical and financial) the are necessary to a positive, successful childhood.

I stand on the argument as made. I think there is a borderline problem creating this attraction (for him), I think the results fail eveyone all around and that if properly driven socially the situation would not have existed in the firstplace.

D

[kitmm]

Hi again Sierra,

I just want to pick you up on a point: you say "Your entire article presupposes the idea that anyone who disagrees with the original poster is somehow suffering from a problem." I don't quite understand how you get that from what I wrote.

I certainly don't think that Tim is without fault; he is, in no insignificant way, responsible for the position in which he now finds himself. In fact, if you read my earlier posts (Eg. #39, 13th February 2005, 12:06 AM), I'm equally critical of certain aspects of Tim's attitude and actions. But when you reductively conclude that all his current troubles derive from some non-existent psychosexual pathology, you just sound like a hot-headed moralist, not the 'hard-line rationalist' that you perceive yourself to be.

You also say "properly driven socially the situation would not have existed in the firstplace." I take this to mean something to the effect of 'if society was more scornful of age differences, Tim would never have had a child with someone 13 years younger and wouldn't be in this situation now'. Not only is this a curious turn of logic (to say that if a couple had never met then they wouldn't ever split up) but its simply fascist (which is why I say "you just come across as some red-necked yank"). What would you prefer to be done? Laws brought in to limit what you regard as non-"age-appropriate" relationships? Perhaps public floggings of couples whos birthdates are more than five years appart? Or maybe the rest of us in society could spit on these evil 'age-inappropriate' people in the streets, or piss through their letterboxes?

The problem with your contributions here is that they divert the discussion from issues to do with coping with a breakup to some paranoid rant about paedophilia (entirely inapt to this particular discussion thread), away from issues of personal relationships to some right-wing opinions about social responsibility.

I really don't mean to insult you -- seriously, I don't -- but shooting off at the lip, as you have, you really do "come across as some red-necked yank". Sorry.

Kit

[Sierra]

On the first point:

"if society was more scornful of age differences, Tim would never have had a child with someone 13 years younger and wouldn't be in this situation now"

Exactly correct. Relationships like this are inherently problematic. The burden often falls to society when they disolve.

The standard of legal conduct rarely defines conduct necessary to successful living. It is perfectly legal to be a penniless drunk. There mere fact that there are many of them is hardly a ratification of the lifestyle.

I stand by my point.

A man who finds his "mate" in a teenager and then impregnates that teenager, all while in his 30's has a problem. Period.

I consider it borderline pedophilia. If 35/15 would be defacto, ~31/~19 is borderline.

Because I advocate a more restrictive standard of acceptable relationships does not impart that I have "problems" I wish to assuage by needlessly berating others.

D

[kitmm]

Sierra,

People of all ages have relationships with people of all ages. Get over it. Age differences only became a morality issue in recent centuries (see Michel Foucault's 'History of Sexuality Volume 2: The Use of Pleasure' for more on this), and they only became the domain of legislation in the nineteenth century when European nations, particuarly Britain, introduced age of consent as part of a more general movement against child labour and, to be more specific, against child prostitution.

Moreover, the notion of the 'innocent child' is a construct and conditional on particularly historical and cultural values. Before the C19th, children were regarded as being born inherently wicked, and were to need salvation. The notion of childhood innocence gained credibility in European cultures with the rise of notions of pedagogical democracy. This isn't to say that I don't myself believe in age of consent laws; I think that they are fundamentally necessary. But they are culturally conditional and not God-given and set in stone.

You say that "A man who finds his 'mate' in a teenager and then impregnates that teenager, all while in his 30's has a problem. Period." There is an assuption here that the 'teenager' has no agency in the decision-making process and is simply a passive player in the scenario that is 'impregnated'. I know Tim and his partner personally, and I know that a mutual decision was made between them to have a child (myself, I do question the wisdom of their decision, sure; but you have to understand that this was not some hapless girl accidentally getting up-the-duff to some predatory older man. She made the decision to have a child with Tim, and vice versa.) As I say in an earlier message, to imply that she cannot be accountable for her own life decisions is patronising to say the least.

Finally (at least for this particular posting), your use of the term "borderline pedophilia" is a thinly-veiled attempt to pathologise a relationship that is perfectly acceptable for the vast majority of people in Western liberal Judeo-Christian society. The phrase sounds all very convincing, but it's about as credible in the acadmic and professional field of psychology as Dr Phil and Oprah. Basically, it's pop-psych bull****.

When it comes down to it, Sierra, for some ill-founded moral reasons (upon which you never actually elaborate) you don't like the idea that a 20 year old woman can have a child to a 33 year old man. Period. It doesn't matter to you that the relationship is entirely consentual, that a 20 year old woman might have made an active decision in becoming pregant to a 33 year old man. So, you make the situation sound 'pathological', like its a medical/psychological condition on the man's part. Pathologising sexuality is the oldest and most tired strategy of the unimaginative moralist, with no case to argue except 'I don't like it'.

Kit

[Sierra]

In large part the world is a place of absolutes. By that I mean that we, as a species, exist in a context where there are (or should be) basic moral and behavioral guidelines to direct behavior. I believe these standards exist regardless of whether or not I agree with them.

You obviously do not. Clearly you are in the group of people who advocate an "anything goes" style of human relationships in which any behavior is acceptable as long as everyone one (hopefully of legal age) consents. No doubt you would be comfortable with plural marriage.

Life is not "anything goes".

D

[kitmm]

Sierra,

Do you really see the world in such black and white terms?

Just because I don't advocate the imposition of supposedly universal notions of morality when it comes to relationships between consenting adults, it doesn't then follow that I think that 'anything goes'. Much of my own work is on ethical issues arising from cultural discourses on the Holocaust, and you certainly wouldn't find an 'anything goes' attitude underlying anything I've published. But, as Primo Levi (himself a survivor of Auschwitz) argues, there are always 'grey zones' -- nothing is black and white, especially in relation to morality.

So, I do disagree with you entirely that "the world is a place of absolutes". The world, rather, is a place in which meaning of utterances and deeds are negotiated within specific contexts. The "basic moral and behavioral guidelines", as you call them, don't exist, or at least they don't exist regardless of contexts -- they only exist insofar as a society holds them in place by some degree of consensus, which is never absolute.

I don't understand how you conclude from this that I therefore "would be comfortable with plural marriage". I believe nothing of the sort. I do, however, believe that in situations where plural marriages are a societal norm (as is the case in some non-Western contexts) it would be arrogant, patronising and offensive to impose our own moralities of monogamy.

As I see it, the moralistic scorn you put on my friend Tim and the situation with his partner is (in more subtle ways) comparable to the moralistic scorn that missionaries used to put on polygamous non-Western cultures. With little understanding of the nuances of their relationship, in which they had negotiated the rules in a power-mutual way, you apply the blanket judgment that all legal and consenting relationships in which there is some age difference, that are outside of your arbitrary standard of age difference, are morally questionable.

Well, to adopt your black-and-white world view for a moment, you're wrong.

Kit

[Sierra]

BY absolutes I am postulating that, regardless of context, some behaviors are simply wrong. I simply put forth that some behavior is not acceptable regardless of the fervant efforts to rationalize it and the demonification of those who oppose it.

Probably the finest example of this is NAMBLA.

Now, because the idea of freedom often conflicts with this notion of absolutes, many behaviors that (I feel) are wrong are not legally prohibited. Society often reacts only in the extreme situations to prohibit conduct while ignoring only slightly less culpable behavior.

In the US you can drive at 16, vote at 18 but must wait until you are 21 to drink alcohol. I can only imagine that it is similar in the UK. The idea hereseems to be that society invests certain rights and responsibilities are certain arbitrary ages for reasons of necessity. By example, a 16 year old may need to drive to a job or support elders by driving for them long before they are mature enough to vote or drink. I reject the idea that somehow a person is suddenly enriched emotionally on their 18th or 21st birthday that suddenly enables them to deal more effectivey with life. The notions of "legal age" do little to support true individual development.

Legal age is a marker of the investment of legal rights, not a measure of individual preparedness for them.

You seem to suggest that your friend has done a good thing by impregnating a teenager shortly after she can vote in her first election but before she could legally purchase a beer (in the US).....all because he "loves her" and likes "looking at her".

I submit to you that that is wrong....in any context. If I were to follow your "grey area" argument to its logical conclusion it would seem that all statutory age requirements would be subjective based on some interpretation of individual maturity. Beth can have sex at 12, Johnny has to wait until he's 22 to drive, Edward can vote at 13 and Ellen must wait until she is 25 for everything.

After all, some are "very mature" for their age and some aren't.

Individuals of such dispariate ages rarely come to such a relationship on equal emotional footing. Such relationship are rarely successful in the long term. The rationale that "my grandparents married at 16 and were together 68 years" (as some point out) is hardly a strong argument in favor of promoting such behavior.

Just because a girl or boy can "legally" consent to a sexual relationship with anyone who that chose at 18 (or 16 or whatever) do in no way suggest that they are emotionally prepared to do so.

People are very good at rationalizing and given that most people are quick to retire from conflict with others, reprehensible behavior is quickly rationalized into a context where a pretense of acceptability can be achieved.

I find no possible reason why society should be willing to embrace relationships where 30+ year old men are impregnating teenagers. It is the responsibility of the more mature in society to provide the maximum opportunity for the youth to develop fully. To swoop down and start sleeping with them the moment it is legal is reprehensible.

It may be "legal" but it should be condemed.

Lastly I conclude you would favor plural marriage for the following reasons:

1. It exists as a societal norm somewhere
2. Everyone involved is of legal age
3. Everyone involved consented
4. It would be arrogant, patronising and offensive to impose our own moralities of monogamy

I on the otherhand drive toward a set of behaviors that transcend "our own moralities". I oppose plural marriage not because "I think its immoral (hence bad)", but because it IS immoral and (hence) bad. It has nothing to do with what I think.

In the US in Utah there is a lot of plural marriage going on it remore corners of the state. Everyone involved says that they consent. They all say its god will. The reality however is that these women have virtually no footing against the men who seek to impose this lifestyle. The "consent" the claim to give is rarely freely given (despite their protestations) and the imposition of an "absolute" morality is far more beneficial to the women and children involved than the "they legally consented" mantra you seem to expouse. In fact, the only people who suffer in my "black and white world" are the men who's private, god sanctioned sex party is ruined.

D

[Kate]

Dear Sierra,

I don't think that you really listen to what others say. I also think that you have a filter on what you hear too, because I can read someone's posting and hear it in a completely different way from the way you seem to hear it.

I also take exception to your use of language. You use language deliberately to offend people and then claim that you are challenging them, because, in your words, "they need a trip to the wood shed". Using the terms "impregnating a teenager" is a good example of this behaviour of yours. It is deliberately chosen to offend rather than to bring understading or to have a reasoned and productive discussion with anyone.

Taking that same example I find your morality very confusing, because you have, on a number of occasions, recommended that people should sow their wild oats before settling down to marriage. Presumably it's ok to sleep with teenagers or older women provided they don't get pregnant. Or do they suddenly become mature enough to sleep with you when they turn twenty? Honestly what a mish mash of ideas you spout! A lot of what you say sounds very opinionated to me.

I have tried to understand where you are coming from. I have tried to find some way to respect you, but I am running out of generosity and benefit of the doubt.

Kate

[Sierra]

Pardon me. I am not trying to offend anyone. I did use that "impregnating a teenager" phrase to point out the fact that I consider that conduct distinguishable from a 20 & 19 year old who partake of the same behavior. I see no point in deliberately offending anyone.

By example, I would call someone a "deadbeat" long before I would call them "economically challenged". In selecting the term I AM trying to suggest a certain culpability. I didn't call him a "dirty old man". To me THAT would be insulting.

Gee whiz. You guys read so much more in to what I write than what is there. Perhaps its my fault. You say I am insulting so I select particular phrases to try and be clear and the more clear I try to become the more you tell me I am insulting everyone.

Finally, yes, people should sow their wild oats....but good god....with people age appropriate. Far too often dispariate age relationship (and I don't mean 1 year) are more about victimization (whether they see it or not) than about "love"

I am trying to be consistent. I am not trying to be pointlessly insulting. However, I do think the behavior in question is wrong.

Here is a quick recap of my morality:

1. Age dispariate relationships: wrong
2. Not picking carefully: wrong
3. Sowing your oats: good (see #2)
4. Lying and cheating: wrong
5. Abusive relationships: leave quickly

Seems kind of consistent to me.

As deployed: H, after years of dating, relizes that he (around 30) is ready to settle down and start a family. With experience in dating, he has a set of criteria (based on experience) that he seeks in a W. W also comes to the bargain similarly situated. Both are less interested in another partner than in building something together. Further, they are more likely to consider the "real" factors in what makes a marriage a success instead of superficial factors. H & W marry and have a MUCH higher probability of a long and successful marriage, cultivating not only love and experienced appreciation of one another, but material assets with which they can support their minor children, and in turn, help them launch their lives.

Seems like a reasonable morality.

D

D

[kitmm]

"Age dispariate relationships: wrong".

At what arbitrary point do you consider an age difference to be 'age disparate'? Two years? Four years? Six years? My partner is 8 years older than me -- RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!

Your morality is inconsistent and paradoxical. According to you, all things are clear-cut and not negotiable; yet your own standards are contingent upon the argument that you put forward at any given time.

Kit

[Sierra]

Not at all.

A famous justice in the US, when asked to define pornography said: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. (and no, I am not calling anyone a pornographer)

You are right. It is difficult to define. If you are 40 and your partner is 48 it is a different situation than if you are 18 and your partner 26. The age spread is the same, but there IS something contextually different.

Shouls a 20 year old date a 12 year old (sex not withstanding)? 15 & 23? 14 & 22?

I don't know. But truly society has an interest in knowing. Society sets arbitrart limits all the time.

The law talks about "reasonable" and "forseeable" all the time. What is that? WHo knows.

I can not answer your question other than to say an age difference in a couple should not be "significant". What that is, I don't know. I do know that the younger a party is the more "significant" and gap becomes.

I would not let my 16 year old daughter date someone who was 24. I probably would let my 30 year old daughter marry a 38 year old man.

Can I explain the difference, no. Is it significant, yes. The mere fact that I must rely on "get feeling" to differentiate the two situations does not make my logic inconsistent.

D

D

[kitmm]

Sierra

I find it curious that you quote from Justice Potter stewart. Stewart was a moderate on the US Supreme Court bench probably best known (notwithstanding his famous quote) for his suppot for the invalidation of death penalty laws in 1972 (Furman vs. Georgia 1972) and the recognition of the right to abortion (Roe vs. Wade 1973) -- my kinda guy.

Anyway, that aside, I want to address your statement: "I can not answer your question other than to say an age difference in a couple should not be 'significant'. What that is, I don't know. I do know that the younger a party is the more 'significant' and gap becomes." Firstly, I conditionally agree with the second part: the younger a party is, the more significant age difference becomes, insofar as the younger party is unable to make crucial life decisions and that 'significant' means when one party is below the age of consent. I do believe, however, that, when both parties are of consenting age, 'significance' in age difference is 'in the eye of the beholder'. The fact that you and I differ so radically only this point supports this point. Male 33 with female 20 is not, in my opinion, significant. I do wonder what you would think if the situation was female 33 with male 20 -- would this be any more acceptable to you?

Forgive me for anticipating your response, but I dare say that you would think that this is less significant because you do place a great deal of emphasis on older men "impregnating a teenager", a phrase that you use repeatedly. Kate notes on this board that "Using the terms 'impregnating a teenager is... deliberately chosen to offend rather than to bring understading or to have a reasoned and productive discussion with anyone." You might think that I'm being euphamistic here, but in Tim's situation (the particular situation from which this discussion arose) a mutual, informed and consenting decision was made to have a child. Your choice of phrase "impregnating a teenager" is hardly a statement of fact; it is deliberately figures the 'teenager' as a passive player with no agency in the 'impregnation'. 'Impregnation' sounds more like what happened to John Hurt's character in Alien.

To reiterate my point in an earlier posting, this was not some hapless girl accidentally and passively becoming 'impregnated' by some predatory older man. She made the decision to have a child with Tim, and vice versa. To imply that a 20 year old cannot be accountable for her own life decisions is absurd. Perhaps you'd like to arbitrarily pick some higher age at which you think a woman can make life decisions? 22? 25? 28? You see, this is the core problem of your position -- it strongly implies that no 20 year old is in a position to make a decision become pregant, unless it's to a man within a few years of her own age. So, if a 20 year old woman becomes pregnant to a 18 year old man, then suddenly her decision is sound?

You see, I think that underlying your moral position here is some misguided pseudo-feminism that actually assumes misogynistically that women are weak and unable to make sound decisions until some older age. Or to put a finer point on it, you imply that young women are unable to make sound decisions when the man is 'significantly' older then her, yet women *can* make such decisions if the man in closer to her age.

Your position makes no sense. In fact, I put it to you that you really have no argument; only reactionary gut feelings that just don't withstand scrutiny.

Kit

[Sierra]

Ok....here we go...

1. I do wonder what you would think if the situation was female 33 with male 20 -- would this be any more acceptable to you?

Absolutely not. No normal woman 33 years old should have a proper interest in a boy (man) who is 20? What exactly, in your mind, are these realtionships based upon? Similar life experiences?

2. Male 33 with female 20 is not, in my opinion, significant.

Apparently you believe that the moment a person reaches "legal age" they are suddenly invested with a world of wisdom and are capable of making fully informed rational choices. In the US this woman can not legally purchase alcohol. If she can not handle drinking I would suggest that we are acknowledging that even at the wise old age of 20 there is still some growing and maturing left to do. If that is the case its a lousy time to be having a baby.


3. [I]n Tim's situation (the particular situation from which this discussion arose) a mutual, informed and consenting decision was made to have a child.

Yep. Thats how I see it and further proof of my point (see #2). I would be willing to bet that this sage 20 year-old woman has: a. few if any significant material assets b. no college education c. a limited career to this point and d. no real estate ownership. The mere fact that, faced with that, the "mutual, informed and consenting decsion" was made to have a baby displays the very immaturity and lack of planning that makes the entire relationship highly suspect. Any 33 year old man who puported to "love" a teenager/20yo should be couseling and advising her to her benefit. Saddling her with a child, ESPECIALLY out of wedlock is an unconscionable departure from even the minimum standard of acting in another's best interest.

Secondly, what the hell was HE thinking. I'd be willing to bet he is not far from a,b,c&d above. Neither had any business having a child in an obviously unstable relationship. The world is full of "love children".

4.) She made the decision to have a child with Tim, and vice versa. To imply that a 20 year old cannot be accountable for her own life decisions is absurd.
Oh, she is going to be held accountable. She is screwed now. The entire point is that she should not be faced with these decisions at this point in life. If she is an attentive and caring mother she will sacrifice her youth to this baby. If she is not then society at large will end up picking up the tab.

As in #2 I propose that the mere cost of the decision in time, money and committment displays her lack of understanding of those at the time it was made.


This is wrong. You and society should be driving toward a higher standard of behavior. This 33 year old jerk has saddled this girl with a burden I doubt she fully understands. The mere fact that she only apparently wants to be friends now PROVES that he should not have gotten her pregnant.

The advantage of "age compatible" relationships is that, in large part" both parties are at similar places in their thinking. 19 year old boys and 19 year old girls are probably both equally terrified of pregnancy.

People should not always be given what they want and have decided to pursue. Just because this woman consented to exploitation does not mean it should be condoned.

You do this girl a disservice by suggesting all of this was ok. What is worse, you are setting up the next girl similarly situated for disaster.

Tell me, who cares for this baby most of the time? If its mom, who pays her bills?

D

[Sierra]

Also,

You are AGAINST the death penalty, FOR abortion and then tell me I am illogical and inconsistent?

I am steadfastly FOR BOTH.

D

[tim5571]

"Yep. Thats how I see it and further proof of my point (see #2). I would be willing to bet that this sage 20 year-old woman has: a. few if any significant material assets b. no college education c. a limited career to this point and d. no real estate ownership. The mere fact that, faced with that, the "mutual, informed and consenting decsion" was made to have a baby displays the very immaturity and lack of planning that makes the entire relationship highly suspect. Any 33 year old man who puported to "love" a teenager/20yo should be couseling and advising her to her benefit. Saddling her with a child, ESPECIALLY out of wedlock is an unconscionable departure from even the minimum standard of acting in another's best interest.

Secondly, what the hell was HE thinking. I'd be willing to bet he is not far from a,b,c&d above. Neither had any business having a child in an obviously unstable relationship. The world is full of "love children". "

You are so very, very wrong in your BETS!

This 33 year old jerk has saddled this girl with a burden I doubt she fully understands. The mere fact that she only apparently wants to be friends now PROVES that he should not have gotten her pregnant.

Keep your insults to yourself please Sierra, when u neither know myself or my partner ok.

[Kate]

I think that this thread has probably gone on long enough as, Sierra, you don't seem to have grasped how much you are upsetting other people.

I suggest the matter is dropped and Tim is left to receive appropriate support on the Marriage Help forum.

Kate