Obligations and Taboo

The ultimate goals of an intimate relationship, according to Jeske, is that they must preserve individual autonomy and he moral significance of that relationship. It is quite easy to see how this plays out during the movie. The main character, Stella, has trouble with her own familial obligations. She struggled with whether her relationship with Winston was truly right and how it played a role in her own life. She voluntarily chose him, but as the movie goes on, she cannot get over the stereotypes of his age. Stella embodied the worry that voluntarist that Jeske mentions. When Winston tried to leave, she finally realized that, “genuine intimacy cannot be coerced” (Jeske, 441). This sudden realization that he was willing to let her go for her own goals assured her that their love was genuine, so the worries disappeared. This movie also depicted a huge struggle between her familial obligations. She was obligated to see to the well-being of her son and her siblings. To her, being with Winston violated those, and that was the main struggle in the movie.

However, the age difference led me to a very specific question: Can age difference be approved of according to special obligations in the family and intimate relationship? For this movie, there was a 20-year age gap. These two age groups truly see, to draw on previous posts, two fairly different reality of the world. The experience of a 20-year-old does not amount to that of a 40-year-old. In terms of intimate obligations, the age gap could definitely impose on individual autonomy and moral significance. For the first, the older one in the relationship might not see the potential in a younger person, which easily violates autonomy. As for the older one in the relationship, the younger one could be imposing on their own life goals. The whole “right or wrong” aspect of the age difference also imposes on the moral significance.

As for familial obligations, it is hard to deny how strong of an impact it can make. While Jeske does argue that family should not expect a child to reciprocate money spent on taking care of them, it is hard for anyone to escape that. The parents of the younger one would want their child to excel for their own benefit. As for the older one, the parents might be shocked and insistent that the younger one is a “gold digger.” Still, these are not reasons that Jeske would say make up familial obligations. She insists that the special obligations of family could mean promoting well-being. So, if the couple is happy despite the age difference, the family should just let them be for their own sakes.

Do you think familial obligations that Jeske alluded to point to slight approval of age difference (not saying Jeske does but more so the interpretation)? Or do you think the age difference could violate what Jeske constitutes as relationship obligations? Which one, to you, is the strongest for an argument for or against age differences in relationships?