dailydogma
19d ago
dailydogma
19d ago
Upper class white fertility had already collapsed in his day and they were being replaced by the lower classes. Now that's happening between countries. Also my point was more that he explores how quantitative traits works and outlines a eugenics plan.
dailydogma
19d ago
Waiting 10 years is an imposition on young men for the sake of the blob, so no. I support waiting 5 years max and still marrying with a potential age gap of 2 or 3 years. All the arguments against this I've heard are bad. Just credentialism and feminism basically.
dailydogma
19d ago
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Just read Francis Galton.
dailydogma
20d ago
The only good solution to this is a traditional marriage regime, not this monstrosity Americans made.
I am sympathetic to that, but it is ultimately a self own, because you live in a society where you are almost forced to fornicate, so it's not the big evil you think it is. Let's say you marry early. You can't marry that early because the type of people who prosecute the woman won't let you marry until 18. Can you marry at 18? Is your wife older than you? Exact same age? What are the odds of that? Is it natural? They won't let you marry a 16 year old when you're 18, they'll throw you in prison like the 28 year old woman with the hopes that Travonius tears you up a little if you catch my drift. So if your wife is a normal amount younger than you, you're probably 21 or 22 by the time you're allowed to touch her ... when did you start feeling horny, 12? So just wait 9 or 10 years, no big deal? No sympathy for„gooners” either, so if a boy looks up lascivious girls his age, or his future wife's age, during this time, your FBI will arrest him and sentence him as an adult to some United States justice. It's okay, I mean you can have sympathy for horny people? They're just young men anyway, and everybody hates them.
dailydogma
20d ago
By that standard, nobody is innocent.
dailydogma
20d ago
You know it's harm and refuse to protect people like me. For instance, adultery. Nobody pretends like that isn't harm. The Bible is clear that it should be a crime. History is clear that was a crime. Men and women are clear that it's wrong. There are other examples.
dailydogma
20d ago
I'm a victim then. When do I get to put the people who offend me and make my life bad in prison? I would much rather have sex with a 28 year old woman when I was 15 than deal with a lot of what people do to me.
dailydogma
20d ago
So you're in favor of criminal penalties for misgendering, then? Because that (and safetyism more generally) is the logical conclusion to giving this argument any legal weight.
The view you're in favor of isn't logical. Logic would imply protections for men like anti-adultery laws, but they aren't interested in making the law logical and fair. It's trad-hat on for girls, and, thanks to Ginsburg, boys, and hippie hat on for men. We can get scammed by women, cheated on, whatever, we just have to grow up and deal with it, but as soon as it's one of their protected categories it's 10 years of prison per irrational tear cried.
dailydogma
20d ago
society's desire to punish sex with young women.
Why are they like this though? Is it their cruelty or something else?
dailydogma
20d ago
But in America treating transgeessions differently depending on the sex of the victim is not a stable equilibrium
So Americans want to sacrifice innocent women in the name of feminism? Why are they so feminist?
and most people would rather overpunish unprofessional teachers than under punish rapists.
Women 99% of the time cannot rape men. If they pull it off, they also threatened them with a deadly weapon which is enough of a charge I think. Also Americans overpunish „rape” since they have expanded the concept far beyond what it actually means. So wanting to not overpunish „rape” is another aspect of their excessive cruelty.
dailydogma
20d ago
I feel like this topic gets rehashed enough times on here it's kinda pointless.
Every topic is pointless. The purpose is mostly intellectual entertainment/sparring.
Yes the current line is very arbitrary and not in line with historical norms.
So you disagree with it.
On the other hand trying to assail the age of consent always gives creepy weird vibes
Humans are cognitively biased towards being embarrassed about having sex. Including defending having sex against the anti-sex. Apparently having sex in private was more adaptive than doing it in public. Maybe it helped some men secretly cuck others or something. Maybe it has to do with monogamy. But I think this instinct transfers to sexual ethics discourse weakly to moderately and so pro-sex people are at an unfair disadvantage due to this.
especially on a platform like this where nobody controls any access to the means of reproduction.
Nobody controls anything here. They don't control AI production, monetary redistribution, the government, the White House, nothing. All of it is pointless. Why are you trying to shut down this topic specifically?
dailydogma
20d ago
Adults cheating is at most a contract violation
No, it's historically a crime that could result in execution.
Your comment is just stating the normie/liberal position instead of an argument. Rhetorically, it's flawed.
dailydogma
20d ago
This is inherent in punishment. If punishment didn't cause harm to the target, it wouldn't be punishment--you're basically arguing to never punish anyone.
False dilemma. Obviously there are degrees of punishment. It's cruelty when you go overboard. I agree teachers who hit on their students should be fired, but it's cruel to put them in prison, especially for more than 1 year.
And it's not "no reason"; the reason is that sex with underage people, especially when the age difference is drastic and the teacher is in a position of authority, is harmful to the lives of the victims, even if they don't immediately step up and say "yeah, I was harmed by this".
I believe in no victim, no harm. If you can't find a victim, there is no harm and should be little to no prison time.
Ok, sorry, heat too high and light too low I guess. Sorry for comparing 28 year old women hitting on 16 year old boys being bad to believing in witchcraft. But do you get my point, how your logic can come off as magical? I accept what you're saying but the context here is these women face 10 years in jail or so. I understand they might have causes you some slight discomfort as a teenager, but that can't justify a decade of incarceration. People cause me emotional discomfort and self image issues almost every day, and it would be a very different world if even some of them could be locked up for 10 years for causing me discomfort. I just don't believe a woman hitting on you at 16 can be much more harmful than how I feel when someone says I'm retarded.
dailydogma
20d ago
And why do Americans empower their mothers to be against drunk driving? Sounds pathological.
What pathology exactly? I've heard this in the wild, not aimed at my myself but from your crowd in this discussion, and it didn't make sense. I have a very loving marriage, what deep pathology are you talking about exactly? How would you know if you didn't know what sex was at 16? How does that make you a sex expert? If anything it makes you delayed at sex and romance matters. Are we just making the laws for the delayed at this point, normal people be damned?
dailydogma
20d ago
This doesn't really make sense. Hajnals invented stuff because of high IQ, not their degenerate marriage practices. With science, one doesn't need magical thinking about particular random historical groups where you cargo cult their successes and adopt all their practices whole-sale. You can just have high IQ people who are historically normal in other ways, and these people will invent things and also have a TFR above 2 because they will get married young and have a lot of babies.
dailydogma
20d ago
FWIW I wouldn't be thrilled if a grown woman made sexual advances on my 15yo brother or son if I had one. Now I don't think the physical consequences of that relationship would have any pronounced difference if the boy in question was 14 as opposed to 16 (age of consent in my country), if he personally enjoyed it. But age of consent laws exist for a reason, there is still the moral quandary of blurring healthy boundaries at a critical stage of development.
I think the problem is that Americans are cruel. Your logic is „I wouldn't be thrilled” and the laws exist „for a reason.” Yes, I wouldn't be thrilled if someone goes past me at 150 kmh on the highway. The speed limit exists „for a reason.” Mm hm. Maybe he has a reason to be in a hurry but if he is stopped by police, too bad.
None of this logic works if I find out the man is incarcerated for 10 years. You must actually do something wrong to justify that, not something which is „not thrilling.” You are basically destroying the lives of these women for no reason. If you fired them as teachers and left it at that, fine, the rules exist for a reason. But you need a very good reason, not a vague, I'm not thrilled reason, to incarcerate someone. At least if you aren't cruel.
I think there ought to be laws against cruel people, because such people don't thrill me. They ought to feel their own cruelty.
dailydogma
20d ago
As a simple model, this is wrong. The driver of falling fertility we don't really see is an increase in voluntary DINKdom.
It is not wrong. Increasingly late marriage age follows collapse in marital fertility.
and per surveys most of the 3->2 shift feels involuntary
What are you talking about? The data I've seen suggests that married people have as many kids as they want. Which is now 1 or 2.
dailydogma
20d ago
Women marrying before 22 was never the default in cisHajnal societies
Well, it was for the people who lived in the Hajnal area before about 1500 AD. Hajnal societies only emerged in the early modern period. They're historically abnormal and are going extinct, so maybe not a great exemplar to use.
and transHajnal societies where women married younger didn't really do love marriage
Not true.
my now-wife and I did the whole teen romance thang with all the cringe you would expect in our mid-20s, having both only been meaningfully on the dating market for 1-2 years
Maybe the range is a bit larger then but I doubt it extends past 30. It probably depends on the person.
dailydogma
20d ago
There is often a lower cutoff for sex with peers, but not adults.
Why? Teenagers are often attracted to adults, mostly in their 20s, and adults in their 20s are often attracted to teenagers. Is this just about romantic affirmative action for teenage boys?
dailydogma
20d ago
I would be fine with two cutoff dates, with the lower one separating "definitely a crime" from "could be problematic".
They used to have this in Europe more often but radical feminists have insisted otherwise. Although Germany still has a law like this. They got rid of it in Belgium and France. It was 13 for the age of consent and 15 or 16 for the age of could be problematic.
I think men an women hit the wall 5 years apart. Historically, at 25 and 30, but today I guess most would agree you get some extra time. Although I don't know how much of that is cope.
More options
Context Copy link