A photograph in Stripes' American Roundup feature November 13 troubled a letter-writer. The photo, from The Associated Press, showed a reserve soldier saying goodbye to his girlfriend, forehead-to-forehead, as he was being shipped off from South Bend, Ind., for more training before going to Iraq. The caption said the soldier was 22 years old, the girlfriend 17.
"Why would you post a picture of a 22-year-old soldier dating a 17-year-old child in Stars and Stripes?" asked Second Lt. Michael Vaughan, writing from Orgun-E, Afghanistan. He noted that the age of consent was 16 in Michigan, where the soldier was from, and 14 in Indiana, where the goodbye took place. But he said that shouldn't stop the Army "from looking into this soldier's actions to determine if they violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and taking appropriate action."
So we looked into UCMJ. It defines the age of consent as 16. But there's more to consider. A liaison that occurs off base in a foreign country with a foreign national is governed by the age-of-consent law in that country. Likewise, relations that happen in America, off-base, are covered by the laws of the state.
And the age-requirement laws vary sharply among countries and among states. Here's a rundown in both categories.
What's your point LT?
I think the Lt. is off base here (no pun intended). 17 years old is no child. I was 17 when I joined the military in the 70's. My father was 17 when he joined the military in the 50's. Furthermore, he was 21 when he returned from the Korean war, met a lovely 16 year old girl while attending what was then called 'Business College' on the GI bill. They married the day after her 17th birthday which was 3 months after his 22nd. They had 3 kids who all grew to be successful and productive members of society, and enjoyed a wonderful life together until God called him home in 1989. My mother still misses her husband, my father, every day. So, 22 and 17? I reiterate, whats your point LT?
Is This Vaughan's Point?
Lt Vaughan’s only point seems to be that he personally has an issue with 22-yr old dating a 17 yr old for some unknown reason and wants to see the soldier get into trouble.
It does not vilolate the UCMJ, nor is it illegal in the majority (about 66%) of the states. Furthermore, the llieutenant wants the soldier’s chain of command to waste their time and resources pursuing “taking appropriate action” against the soldier because the soldier’s relationship violates the principles or morals or values of one Leiutenant Vaughan.
Like Rainman says, “What’s your point LT?” What is the real reason you have taken offense? You should certainly be able to access the UCMJ yourself and read that Pfc Mathews’ relationship is lawful, so why bring it up in a letter to S&S?
I realize that you are only a second lieutenant and have a lot of learning to do to prepare for real leadership. So here is a nugget for you: Learn and assimilate the Army’s values into your leadership approach but keep you own personal prejudices, judgments, and morals to yourself. You can’t force your values onto others, and if you try to do so while you are in a position of leadership, then that is an abuse of your power and position.
The other side
Now that it's been established just how legal it was for the 17-year-old young woman and the 22-year-old soldier to be together, perhaps all those in curiously defensive favor of the photo being published would be willing to consider the feelings of her parents - or the parents of any child who is not old enough to enter into a legally binding contract without parental consent.
It's a bit unsettling as the parent of older children to know that, whether I like it or not (and whether I like him or not), my child's photograph will be plastered on the front page of Stars and Strips if the powers-that-be see fit to do so.
There is never a shortage of married people and children telling each other goodbye when service members deploy. Given the amount of drama and infatuation behind even the most serious of teenage romances, one wonders if this photo was not chosen for just that reason, bypassing the less dramatic displays of committed love between two married people who are separating for the 4th, 5th or 6th time – and whose parents have no legal say over their lives whatsoever.
The relationship being legal doesn't make the photograph tasteful.
Fair Point msdusmcd
Yours is a fair point msdusmcd, but the lieutenant’s point was focused on the legality of the relationship and about the chain of command looking into UCMJ violations.
I am not specifically "in favor" of the photograph being published, but I do think Vaughan's attack on S&S against the photo was unwarranted given the reasons he stated in his letter. Also, any legally binding contract, such as marriage, is a non-issue since this is simply a boyfriend/girlfriend issue.
You are right about married members, and those with families, are prevalent, and possibly more relevant. However, there are no shortage of those types of photographs being published already. But I also think that with so many young single members deploying, those who are only dating, are also a legitimate story, and thus worthy of publication.
I too wonder how the young lady's parents felt but I suppose this whole thing just goes back to the media’s practice of documenting intimate moments between people, even those in committed marriages.
Age of Constent - When and Where
Now you can't even take a picture without someone becoming upset with our good ole "Politically Correct" attitude. The 2Lt must have been bored to bring us his view which was complety off-base when what he needs to do is brush up on the UCMJ. Spend more time getting the facts then worrying about getting your name in the paper for promotion points. We have men and women giving there lives in the Middle East and you are writing about something that is "legal" and none of your business. You have a long way to go Lt, use your time wisely!
underage dating
Lt.Vaughan, I realize you are in a stressful situation there and trying to take your mind off your troubles, but you have a lot to learn......young girls are funner to date than oldies of like nineteen or twnety because they haven't heard all your jokes yet and just because she is my 13 year old cousin doesn't mean anything, when I take her to Tokyo (age of consent-12) or Vancouver BC (the same as Tokyo) we are perfeckly legal, and since it is out of country, the Mann Act doesn't apply..........and if it's good enough for ol' Jerry Lee and Chuck Berry, it should be good enuff fer anyone!
Age of consent
Age of consent laws have one and only one legitimate goal: To prevent the victimization of persons who are not old enough to be considered fully self aware.
I believe a person at the age of 16 who activly seeks a romantic relationship should be free to do so.
On December 17th, 2008 msdusmcd says:
"The relationship being legal doesn't make the photograph tasteful."
What exactly is the problemb? The picture is not of the two engaging in coitus. The picture is to show the emotions provoked by the seperation of soldiers and their loved ones.
age of consent
obviously the person who feels that there is something to be investigated here has issues of their own and needs to learn what and whose business they need to mind
Ridiculous
Lieutenant,
Clearly you have bordered on the side of being quite silly. Unfortunately and in defense of your ridiculous attitude, you are the epitome of what we are seeing in the officer corps of late. Corporate puritans instead of hard nosed slug it out combat officers who understand soldiers, true discipline, and toughness.
Corporate Puritans...
...exactly the problem in today's military. No back-bone, no risk, only play-it-safe-cronies who are focused on an easy life and promotion.
SERIOUSLY?!!?
What is with the tattle telling in the military these days?! everyone is out to find someone breaking the rules. EVERYONE knows SOMEONE who's been less than honest, or broken a rule of the UCMJ. and most would agree that in every situation, because of different circumstances, it's really hard to take some rules seriously. the guy wasn't 45, he was 5 years older. whats the big deal?
It's a sad, beautiful photo
All I see is the picture of a young soldier trying to get across to his very sad, scared girlfriend that he wishes he weren't leaving her, but that since he must, that he hopes she'll be strong. I was touched, not disgusted. The photo conveys to the rest of the world what those waiting for their loved ones to come home from danger are going through. They're both young, but have the weight of the world on their shoulders. The last thing either of them needs right now is trouble from random busybodies. I'd worry much more about a man trying to hide his relationship with a younger girl than this situation.
I hope everything works out well for them, and that this young lady gets her soldier back, safe and sound.
Age of Consent - and other laws
If it is true that "A liaison that occurs off base in a foreign country with a foreign national is governed by the age-of-consent law in that country" then it follows that prostitution and drug use should be governed by the law in that country. If the soldier were shown kissing a 16-year old prostitute goodbye in a county in Nevada where both activities are legal, then it follows that there should be no consequences to the soldier.