HereAndGone2
No bio...
User ID: 4074
You're happy to have your daughter's genitals be my business if I'm the thirty year old guy wanting to fuck your seventeen year old girl, though.
Adults being concerned about the behaviour of children and young not-yet-adults, and older kids and actual adults around those kids, is how society protects children. "Not my kid, not my family, not my business" is how abuse gets ignored and permitted to continue.
Am I allowed to be concerned about "your daughter's genitals" if she's fifteen and working as a public prostitute in danger of STIs and unwanted pregnancy? Or should I just shut up, Daddy is happy since he's pimping her out and only Daddy gets to make it his business? Am I allowed to be concerned if Daddy is the one fucking her, or is that still none of my business?
The court heard that Sophia Murphy was subjected to "depraved, deeply inappropriate and extensive abuse" by her father.
While the prosecution did not argue that Curran witnessed the abuse of Sophia Murphy, it did contend that, due to the frequency at which it occurred, she was aware of it.
Over the course of the proceedings, Garda Inspector Thomasina McHugh told Judge Sinéad McMullan that the victim was aged between three and 16 years of age, at the time the abuse took place. It happened on a daily basis in multiple rooms of the family home and also in a car.
The offences were said to have been carried out in a "brazen" manner and were "prolific in their frequency".
HereAndGone2
1hr ago
Like I said, life stages. At eighteen for a girl, a four year gap would be a fourteen year old boy, and that's way too young (how eighteen year old boys feel about fourteen year old girls I can't comment). Nineteen and twenty-three isn't quite so bad, but still a gap. You might have younger siblings that age, and the idea of "I'm dating the peer of my younger brother" just feels off.
If men apparently have no problems with "yes she is young enough to literally be my daughter, so?" then "young enough to be a sibling" would be no deterrent.
HereAndGone2
1hr ago
The bonny boy is young but he's growing
Oh! father, dear father
I think you did me wrong
For to go and get me married
To one that is so young
He is but sixteen years
And I am twenty-one
Oh! the bonny boy is young
And he’s growing
Oh! daughter, dear daughter
I did not do you wrong
For to go and get you married
To one that is so young
He will be a match for you
When I am dead and gone
Oh! the bonny boy is young
But he is growing
..At the age of sixteen years
He was a married man
And at the age of seventeen
The father of a son
But at the age of eighteen
O’er his grave the grass grew green
Cruel death put an end
To his growing
HereAndGone2
1hr ago
But why? Be an established 30 year old woman who can now afford to have babies (and hire a nanny to do the scut-work), get yourself a 19 year old stud full of prime youthful sperm to fertilise your eggs and virile enough to service you as many times a day or night as needed, and just dumb enough to shut his mouth and do what Mommy tells him 😁
If it works for the (successful, intelligent, high eugenic value) men, why not for the women?
HereAndGone2
1hr ago
Half-joking here but also half-serious. It's the triumph of the Protestant Work Ethic and the Calvinist spirit. If worldly wealth and success meant God was blessing you, then mo' money mo' blessing. So they made work and success the most important things in life, and then God got taken out of the picture, but work remained as the idol.
Thus all the discourse about "but what would you do if you retired?" and the mixture of disdain and sheer incomprehension for people who don't make their jobs their life, or don't say that they love their jobs instead of just "need to work for a living", and consoling themselves that this means they, the Mammon-slaves, are instead High Value Human Capital and Economically Productive Drivers with Low Time Preference unlike the high time preference slackers who only want to enjoy life and not toil and moil for as many hours in the day for as many years until the grave as they could.
HereAndGone2
1hr ago
And this is before monetary constraints: I can kinda manage a 40h work week, but that is with the rest being leisure time.
This is one of the points I was raising in the divorce discussions. This is why married with kids women look for part-time jobs, or full-time jobs that will not be career-building "work 60-80 hour weeks climbing the promotions ladder" type jobs. Because they're coming home from work and then cooking the meals, doing the grocery shopping, running the house, looking after the kids, handling if the parents/parents-in-law have health crises or need support, etc. which frees up husband to work the main job as breadwinner.
And then they get dinged in the divorce discussions as "but what did she do? nothing! he made all the money, it's totally unfair he has to split it with this useless leech!" and even worse if she was a full-time stay at home mom. Forget the TFR then, it's all "my money, my toys, not gonna share" for the boys.
Argh. I do think that there isn't a realistic expectation of what marriage and parenthood is like for both sexes. Both of you have to put in the work, both of you have to compromise.
It's not a new problem, there are plenty of humorous folk tales about husbands and wives complaining the other has it easier and swapping jobs for the day to get a taste of how the other half lives.
HereAndGone2
1hr ago
Not American, but it seems to me that the older market when it was ABC, CBS and NBC as the three national stations, was where you needed to try and be neutral or at least not lean too obviously towards one side or the other. You were competing for a share of the national audience and that meant voters of both parties and all stripes. News and current affairs programmes were meant to be factual and even-handed.
Then came cable, and now our modern media landscape where there is no longer a national audience that can be assumed to watch the same programmes and news output, and where it is economically viable to be "the channel for left-handed contact lens wearing model train enthusiasts in the south-west", and that combined with the greater partisanship does lead to what we have now.
HereAndGone2
2hr ago
It matters for the life stages. 30 and 50 is not so big of a gap in experience and knowledge as 25 and 17, even though the former has a bigger chronological gap than the latter. And the suspicion always lingers that wanting the young, unformed, and inexperienced partner is so you can control them to get what you want out of the arrangement, not what both mutually want and need.
Leonardo diCaprio is probably the example people look at here, and while there isn't that terribly bad a disparity in ages (26 for his current partner while he's 51 is still nearly twice her age but she's in her mid-20s so an adult), the string of "relationships that end after a while and always with younger women" does seem to indicate something. I think men look at him and go "good for him, he can have his pick of hot young things and dump them when he's bored" but women look at that as "never married, no sign of marrying, partners much younger, that's a guy who's immature in some fundamental way and not a fully-formed adult".
HereAndGone2
2hr ago
Yes, and then when the quasi-adult gets old enough to be a real adult, there's regret and "I married way too young to the wrong guy, now I have met my True Love and want a divorce".
HereAndGone2
2hr ago
Sloot, we're never going to agree on this. I do wish girls didn't go for tits'n'ass, but they've been conditioned that this is what boys want and this is how they should be and we've moved on culturally so that wearing skimpy is the new default. And the boys on here arguing about nubile and young aren't wanting modestly-dressed women who will only hold their hands until the wedding night and no divorce ever.
We're both ordering the waves to retreat and neither of us will have that happen.
HereAndGone2
2hr ago
I've been thinking about this a little, and I do think the difference is that with the age-gap, men are thinking about the sex (sorry, guys) and women are thinking about the relationship. Guys are thinking "Well is she old enough to be legal? Okay? What's the problem?" and women are thinking about "Yeah but she's way too young to have anything in common with you, what will you talk about, how will you both navigate problems when they arise, are you only interested in her because she's green and malleable and can be moulded to what you want?"
I'm not saying this operates on a conscious level, but I do get the impression the men here are coming at it from the angle of "if she's big enough, she's old enough" (to steal the wartime recruiting mantra) and dressing it up in "evolution, baby, it conditions men to want the nubile fresh baby-making machine full of prime eggs for genetic maximisation".
Uh-huh. How many of the fellas laying out elaborate arguments about "sixteen is old enough" really do want to have twenty kids that will all be raised in sequence in the same house and that they will have to provide for? Because if we're talking about evolution-driven nubile fertile reproduction-maxxing, that's what it looks like, not "have two kids that we pour resources into so they end up in the upper-middle class".
HereAndGone2
20hr ago
That's an 8 year gap and not as bad. Once over the age of adulthood and into maturity, the disparity is remedied. The problem at the younger end is that it's not about "Well she's physically able to get pregnant and deliver a child", it's about "she (or he) really is too damn young and inexperienced for all the troubles of adult life".
Even grown ups have their marriages fail due to problems, why would an 'old enough to be my dad and me' couple do much better under the same kind of stressors?
HereAndGone2
20hr ago
You can move too far in the other direction; Mr 50 and Ms 32 may be okay now, but when Mr 70 and Ms 52 are together? Too much of an age gap and it ends up where the younger partner is more or less the caretaker for the older one while the younger partner is still near their prime.
Very few men are clamouring for the right to date 40 year old women, it's the guys who are pushing the limits on "if 17 old enough, why not 16? If 16 old enough why not 15?" that set off the alarm bells.
HereAndGone2
20hr ago
I don't dislike it as such, we can't help our preferences. We can help being creeps. And "I'm forty and I want to fuck a girl literally young enough to be my daughter, and this should not be considered a bad thing and it should be legal" is about being creepy.
I've said this before: men's sexuality is so goddamn easy. Tits, ass, young as you can get 'em, and don't bother with the contents of the container for the tits'n'ass because you don't care about the person, you just care about getting your dick wet. Evolution may have engineered that, but evolution engineered a lot of things that we've had to rein in for the purposes of moving beyond being primates on the savannah.
HereAndGone2
20hr ago
the best one for fertility is for men roughly 20-30 marrying women roughly 15-25
If you have a good chance of being dead by 40, often in childbed, then okay get married at 15 and start having babies. In our current society, that is no longer ideal. Two 22 year olds getting married and having kids by the time they're 25 is the better choice there, I think.
But the main thing with these kind of pieces that riles me up is that it's not about "I want to get married and start on that family of 10 kids as soon as possible", it's "I'm literally twice her age, she's a hot little piece of ass, is it my fault that Evolution ensures men like hot little 15 year old pieces of ass, why does society blame me that she gives me a boner, the teasing little vixen!"
I don't even care that much that she gives you a boner, I do care when it's "I wanna fuck 15 year olds with no consequences" getting dressed up in "Well ackshully it's about TFR and the best way to ensure the best and brightest in society reproduce and that the inverted pyramid of too many old people and not enough young taxpayers gets put back the right way up".
No, you want to be able to have as much novelty and ability without bad societal effects that you can get to fuck the next cohort of hot little 15 year olds once the current cohort you are fucking age out of your preferred range.
HereAndGone2
23hr ago
Thanks for the corrections. There are so many tiny splinters going all the way back to Utrecht that I can't keep track of them and don't particularly care, except when it comes to big news like this.
I wish, not for the first time, that Fellay had been able to talk the society into signing Benedict XVI's framework.
Amen, brother/sister/other. The new spirit of 'going back to the simple church of the Apostles' post-Vatican II was well-intentioned (in most cases) but it threw an entire neonatal ward of babies out with the bathwater, and the likes of traditionalists are sorely needed to bring back reverence and understanding to the liturgy etc. I thought the revision of the translation of the Novus Ordo was a good start (getting closer to the original Latin) but I genuinely don't think "should the Mass be offered ad orientem or not?" is a hill to die on particularly. I'm way more concerned about "we have forgotten what the Eucharist is, see the way receiving Communion is treated and how the Host itself is treated" and the trads are my allies there.
In my less irenic moments, I tend to be "were I pope, the first bunch of bishops I'd excommunicate lock, stock and barrel are the flippin' Germans. They're already desperate to be Lutherans, they can go all the way. And the other European hierarchies needn't think they can rest easy, either." Be glad it's Leo, not me, in charge!
HereAndGone2
23hr ago
Let's take that to the extreme.
25 and 17 is 8 year age gap. 18 and 17 is 1 year age gap. When Mr 25 was 18, Ms 17 was 10. You cool with an 18 year old fucking a 10 year old? Because that's where the objections are coming from: when A was the age B is now, B was way too damn young.
HereAndGone2
23hr ago
High-paying jobs are often also paying as much, or more, for the experience in life and work of the individual as their intelligence and qualifications. Fresh out of college (two year accelerated course) 20 or 22 year old Thule may like to imagine he could do the work of the CEO of MegaLogistics Corp, but in practice he's likely to run the place into the ground by making rookie mistakes due to simple "yeah, this is why we don't do that shiny new thing, we tried it back in '22 and hoo boy it took 2 years to get the production line back to what it used to be" reasons.
HereAndGone2
23hr ago
holy shit does it make him sound like a pedophile
Let's be kinder (and more precise), it makes him sound like an ephebophile. Generally 17 year old boys are not crying about age discrimination with regards to their 15 and three-quarters year old girlfriend, and guys who like to quote stats and ages are a lot older than the "persecuted 18 year olds" used as the example here.
HereAndGone2
23hr ago
Girls typically reach physical sexual maturity (adult secondary sexual characteristics) between the ages of 15 and 17
I'm going to stop you there, and I think this indicates a bit of juggling with a hidden agenda. That is the end stage of physical sexual maturity, but not the point at which fertility begins. Looking up the Tanner Scale, that is Stage V our friend is using, but girls can get pregnant at Stage IV (and the Tanner Scale describes physical changes and maturity which do not line up neatly with chronological age):
In 1970 Britain, boys reached the last Tanner stage, the postpubertal stage, on average at the age of 14.9 years and girls around the age of 14 depending on social class and the particular study. In the nearly fifty years since those studies, the ages at which children are beginning puberty has only declined: (as of 2018) "The age of puberty, especially female puberty, has been decreasing in western cultures for decades now [...] for example, at the turn of the 20th century, the average age for an American girl to get her period was 16 or 17. Today, that number has decreased to 12 or 13 years."
Girls can get pregnant before 15. Hell, in the right (wrong) circumstances, you can get a 9 year old pregnant (see some of the cases raised during in the aftermath of the overturning of Roe vs. Wade).
So when someone goes on about "girls are adult at 17, boys take longer, but we're criminalising poor harmless 18 year olds just for talking to a 16 year old", my antennae twitch and I do wonder "are you butt-hurt because you, a grown adult male, is considered a paedo just because she's 15 and you're 30?"
There really are no, or very few, honest and disinterested arguments on this topic. Everyone has an agenda and an axe to grind. And when we get this kind of careful logic-chopping and selective quotes of the Science! around specific ages, I get very damn suspicious as to motivation.
And then of course we get the "intelligent couples" figleaf. So "big brain if older me should have harem of nubile hotties no younger than 16 so they legal, but also no older than 16 so they not wizened hags of 26, that I can knock up to satisfy my breeding kink, all for the good of society of course!"
Ah, the infamous Seven Year Itch. But I'm thinking more of twenty years down the line, when 17 year old A is now 37 and looking for more and unhappy with their life when they compare it to friends and peers, and blaming B who took advantage of them when they were too immature to know their own mind. That can turn nasty.
Plenty of people who were hell-bent on marrying/being with that guy (or girl) even when their family warned them off, and now they wish they could go back in time and change their decision. Plenty of people who declared at that age "I'm mature, I'm an adult" and now looking back they go "I was a damn fool" about things they did, not just in regards to romance but other choices.
More options
Context Copy link