faceh
25d ago
Yep.
But Trump deviates from the elite norm in more ways than one. Being a Teetotaler, for one.
Is there any evidence that Trump gave in and accepted an invite to sample the finest wines or spirits in the world with his elite buds? It wouldn't be very scandalous, but I've heard no such fact.
Dude also happily enjoys diet coke and McDonalds, to boot. I get the feeling he knows what he likes and indulges in it, and isn't easily tempted to do things just because the cool kids are doing it.
I'm not saying this means he wouldn't want to have the 16 year old, just that he's far enough outside the celeb/power broker stereotype, I don't think he's the type to try something just to fit in with the crowd.
faceh
25d ago
As far as I can tell from the clip in question, those were literally women who worked for his company or resort, and they left his employ because Epstein tempted them away with some other offer. And he's not particularly happy that it happened!
Is "stealing" employees not a relatively common phrase?
If Trump had said something more literal in terms of "abduct" or "kidnap" I'd perk my ears up for sure. As it stands, this makes it marginally LESS likely Trump was complicit, because it indicates he was NOT facilitating Epstein in trafficking his employees. If Trump was helping Epstein, why would Epstein need to 'steal' the girls?
Am I wrong?
faceh
25d ago
So basically, maturity.
Bingo.
An immature child really doesn’t fully understand decision making, and sex is a big thing.
Double bingo. A person that doesn't fully grok that sex makes babies, what STDs are, and the other more subtle risks to intercourse with another person is, definitionally, less capable of consenting to it.
Of course, this puts the onus on the MORE MATURE person to NOT initiate the sexual relationship when they realize the other side isn't really ready.
I think it’s incumbent upon you to provide some test of maturity that would work.
I would be fine with a test in the same vein as that given to teens who want to get their driver's license.
A comprehensive exam that tests, for example, if a person REALLY understands the implications of a sexual relationship. Not on like a deep scientific level, mind, but at least the "ins and outs" (pun intended).
This means that young people can in fact study and prepare for the test, which is a GOOD THING, since it encourages them to learn the necessary information that will prepare them for adulthood. I would also include testing for, say, contractual rights. Maybe someone can't be give student loans unless they can prove they know how compound interest works!
Of course we'd have to have significant anti-cheat measures in place. Which is why I really would prefer there to be some 'objective' "test of willpower" element involved. If you force them to endure some sort of uncomfortable experience without giving in to temptation or dropping out before the finish, its MUCH harder to rig the system.
Yes, this could be the literal equivalent of The Gom Jabbar (but with less severe consequences). If you can't endure a couple minutes of excruciating (but not injurious) pain... I DARESAY you probably aren't 'mature' enough to handle real life. Note that this is LITERALLY how some traditional tribes do it.
I would like to couple that with a requirement that someone, ideally their parents, sponsor them for the test, in the sense that they're affirming "yes, this person is ready for adulthood, and if they screw up I am prepared to help accept the consequences for promoting them too early." So for the next, I dunno, 3 years if they screw up somehow the sponsor is also on the hook for helping fix it.
faceh
25d ago
Its complicated by the fact that women are attracted to power, so where I'd never characterize the leader of the free world as a victim, and Clinton in particular is obviously a horndog, an intern can still throw off tons of 'hints' that she's down to clown b/c the mere fact of having access to a powerful man can be enough to 'persuade' her to sleep with him.
Thinking about the Pence/Billy Graham Rule for avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
Avoiding the creation of these power imbalance situations is much simpler than trying to remove power imbalances.
In general, I think that power discrepancy is why we have age of consent laws. Using the age is obviously a crude approximation, I can think of situations where a 15yo having sex with an 18yo would not be problematic from a power discrepancy point of view, and also of situations where two 18yo having sex would be problematic from a power discrepancy view without being criminal. But still, one has to draw the line somewhere, and age is at least something which can reasonably be verified, while "would a judge like the power dynamics in that relationship?" is much more diffuse.
Okay, second thread of thought, separate from the Trump issue below:
I'm never a fan of the 'power discrepancy' argument since 'power' is usually very hard to define in tangible terms. We know it when we see it, sure, but it comes in different forms. The person who holds financial power might not be the 'more powerful' person in a confrontation where the other party holds... a gun.
"Coercion" is a more tightly defined, and the law has pretty decent standards for recognizing where coercion has occurred. Power can be used to coerce, but it can also be used to 'persuade' in the literal "convince someone that it is good/right for them do to the thing" definition.
Should we differentiate between a rich/powerful guy saying "If you don't sleep with me I will make your life a living hell" vs. saying "If you sleep with me I'll give you a ride in my private jet"? Probably. Either one is the result of a 'power' imbalance.
And, finally, the existence of statutory rape laws can, arguably, invert that power dynamic, rather than eliminate it! A particularly sociopathic 15-17 year old can tell someone slightly older than themselves "Sleep with me/give me money or I will tell the cops you raped me."
I don't think that's a common situation, but you see the point, if we're worried about power imbalances it doesn't do to just hand more power to the alleged less powerful person in this situation.
What's my solution? Bring back literal rites of passage rather than tying things to a strict age-based formula.
Philosophically and psychologically, 'consent' is based on state of mind and understanding of the acts in question, age is only very loosely correlated with those factors. And we have the ability to measure those factors more directly. So why use the less reliable metric that is constantly being gamed anyway.
So I see the "what should age of consent be?" debates as a massive red herring. Understandable one since its the standard in place now. Yet everyone has secondary motives for what they'd prefer the age be. And there legitimately is NOT some 'one size fits all' answer!!
Just cut through that stupid knot and tie legal adulthood to some test or other obstacle that a young person must clear before they're recognized as full adults. Some will pass the test at age 15, some at 18, some at 25, and some never at all.
I can cut through most of the murk wrt Trump's actual involvement with Epstein with a few observations:
-
Any negative fact about Trump that could be leaked has leaked over the last 10 years.
-
Any criminal charge that had the barest chance of sticking was thrown at him in the last 5 years.
-
Biden and Co. were in possession of the Epstein files from 2021-2024.
-
Nothing in the Epstein files that directly implicated Trump in criminal activity was leaked.
-
No criminal prosecutions for such behavior were attempted during the last five years (caveat: those prosecutions would probably take place in Florida, which is friendly ground for Trump).
MY Bayesian priors on Biden and Co. deciding to leak nasty Trump stuff are extraordinarily high. So the lack of such leaks indicate that salacious Trump stuff just wasn't there... or the ongoing possibility that there's a MAD situation where tons of people would get burned if Epstein stuff goes public. However if that were the case, why'd the attack Trump from every other angle?
Does this prove Trump didn't commit statutory rape, or that he's objectively not a pedo or hebephile or whatever? Nah. But looking at the longer Trump record, it doesn't fit any other observed fact, unless he's just a general, indiscriminate horndog.
Lemme put it this way, if you believe that Trump did indeed bang Stormy Daniels (lol remember that name?) in 2006, when she was in her mid-20's and an active porn star... I REALLY think you have to downgrade your belief that Trump actively prefers young teens. Keep in mind this was around when the Epstein stuff was coming to light! There's just no way a guy would look at THIS (SFW) as a workable substitute for a teenager. And for the record I do think it is more likely than not that he did bang her or at least have a sexual encounter.
Anyhow, I remain glad that people are refusing to let the Epstein issue die. I grew up in Palm Beach County during the time his activities were getting investigated and prosecuted, I've been aware of the basic facts of the situation since I myself was in my teens. I hope enough pressure builds to force some actual revelations and possibly prosecutions... but it'd be nice if people were a bit more realistic about what they'll probably find.
faceh
25d ago
Yeah, this might be the most egregious motte-and-bailey that is currently widely accepted.
Call someone a 'pedophile' because they express attraction towards someone just barely under the age of majority, and uninformed onlookers might very well imagine that they're a predator who stalks 10 year olds with designs on kidnapping and molesting them.
And since Pedophiles (the actual child-attracted kind) are virtually the LAST remaining 'identity group' which it is universally accepted are okay to hate, abuse, and maybe even murder, there's huge incentive to get an outgroup member classified as such.
And deeper than just your point:
A person who is eager to draw a distinction between "paedophilia" and "ephebophilia" will be accused of pedantic hair-splitting at best and nefarious motives at worst
Defending pedophiles AT BEST gets you marked as 'low status' and 'weird.' I don't think any person, in the history of EVER, has managed to increase their social standing by being the guy advocating for a nuanced view on child-diddling.
So anyone sensitive to social status just WON'T defend them, even if they do have nuanced beliefs on it.
but marrying the rich guy is generally how we define winning for a woman.
I think the "peasant girl catches the princes' eye" has been a fairy tale for eons... for a reason. So yes.
But the 'winning' move that is more attainable is generally to pick a guy early who becomes rich and successful, thanks to concerted efforts between the two of you. The blatant stereotype is that women don't chase guys, they wait at the finish line to bang the winner, of course.
But for women who have good guidance and play their cards right they can get that guy locked down before he hits his jackpot.
The problems that arise from that came up in last week's discussion on divorce laws.
That said, when you talk about "soft harems" I think we're mixing up what the data here is about.
I mean, when I say "soft" harem, I usually mean girls who are willing to be on 'rotation' as a booty call, maybe they occasionally get a ride in the sports car or boat, or a nice dinner, but they're really just occupying the spot in the vain hope that he DOES settle for them.
So the physical capital outlay is minimal, he's not keeping her in a fancy apartment or buying her lavish gifts regularly, that'd defeat the point.
I strongly suspect even the ultra wealthy would rather not spring for a real harem, its a more complex operation that you can really justify. Its like, why pay for a personal motor pool when Uber provides approximately the same level of service for 1/3 the price.
faceh
26d ago
Eh, its the same as how we crave unhealthy junk food but can restrict ourselves to eating the healthier (but still flavorful) options over the long term.
I think guys have their horny brain which will screw almost any living thing, and then the post-coitus clarity brain that knows they need to find someone stable.
Guys have the things they want when they are mostly aiming to get their rocks off, then the things they want when they consider what kind of kids they'll have, who will help raise them, and what type of person would they tolerate sticking around AFTER they've had sex with them.
Rich guys presumably have the same urges, I'm just suggesting they have more options on the table to chase some strange if they can't keep the urges in check.
faceh
26d ago
I'm not sure that's as true now, marriage rates being lower and median age at first marriage are creeping up.
But maybe. "Early" being early-mid 20's still leaves time to screw around a bit in college, find a girl by Junior year, lock her down, and get married and established early enough to start social climbing.
I'd guess that flings with younger staff are actually less common in the post Me-too era, but its genuinely a target-rich environment to find single women in any corporate environment.
faceh
27d ago
Yes, we've all recently learned that the multimillionaire CEO of a tech company will risk it all to have an affair with the head of HR at said company.
I'd agree escorts aren't the MODAL case here, for sure.
But for most guys, a night with a decent escort is not likely in the budget, so he's likely to throw money at strippers or somesuch.
Rich guy has that fallback, but is not necessarily going to need it.
faceh
27d ago
Question is a bit fraught.
I'd absolutely bet that historically and recently, it was more likely that wealthier men had higher infidelity rates simply because it would be relatively easy for them to find attractive affair partners.
If nothing else, they can afford to pick a high-end escort for a night.
The idea that every rich man who can afford to is secretly fucking hot teens or young women seems like more of a prurient fantasy than anything else.
Invert it. Consider that young women are actively pursuing the rich men (if you're on dating apps, this is effectively explicit) and are much, much quicker to put out for them.
On balance, what effect would we expect this to have? Rich guys getting laid a lot, and very few of these women getting wifed up by said rich man. He can wait for the 'ideal' match, hopefully one that isn't so naive as to bang the nearest rich dude without much discretion.
I've talked to death about the lack of actual long-term relationships forming among the current crop of young women, I think the point that's relevant to this discussion is that there's a class of men who have their pick of women, and actually DO get to have it both ways. Bang the nubile ones for fun and then eventually find one worth marrying.
So what these men are marrying isn't quite revealing what they're actually pursuing, sexually.
High earning men seem to want class peers.
Well. That's who they want on their arm when they're seen in public. Certainly selection bias in terms of what we actually see.
My inherent issue with this is its not differentiating between what they chase as sexual partners vs. what they might actually settle in for a long term relationship.
So what's going on here? The Red Pill explanation of men preferring younger women doesn't seem to fit,
Red Pill would suggest that a wealthy man can and would keep a soft harem of younger women, discarding them as needed, which isn't really refuted by the data here.
Or it might be that richer men are more sensitive to judgement from their peers, who would disapprove of larger age gaps.
Possible. I'll also throw out that younger women are a little less likely to successfully keep up the right appearances and are probably somewhat more likely to do something that is blatantly embarrassing to you either intentionally or unintentionally.
So even if your peers 'approve' of large age gaps, you're still risking reputational damage if the woman you choose is actually immature.
The thing that surprises me most is that you don't see richer men marrying younger women
There's the key word. Marry. Leo DiCaprio has gone through 12 younger women in the last 20 years alone (is he an outlier? Probably, but not by much). No wedding in sight.
Broaden the question to more general 'relationships' and I'd imagine age gaps are more prevalent.
So yeah, is there anything in the data to suggest that rich men wouldn't pump and dump as many young women as they can (Elon sure goes that route) and only marry one that actually matches his personal status more closely?
I'm genuinely not trying to be contrarian, I'm just put off when I see a claim like this, backed up by a narrowly-defined set of data that purports to refute an idea that is making a substantially different claim.
Yes, gentlemen, I hope all of you are telling the women in your lives (mothers, grandmothers, aunts, female cousins, sisters, daughters, wives) that you don't consider them equal partners,
That's a bit of a trick.
"Equal Partners" in the sense that both are contributing to the household. But how does one measure the value or even magnitude of each contribution when they're inherently different in their nature.
If the guy builds the house, builds all the furnishing in it, and does the actual maintenance work on it over the years, (i.e., it ONLY exists thanks to his own labor)...
It is REALLY fair that the woman would get the house in a divorce scenario?
Well, we acknowledge she was the one who was 'keeping house' and doing all the day-to-day work that makes it a pleasant place to live and keeps it from falling into neglect which leveraged the value the man already provided, creating something better than what the man alone could achieve.
So we've got 'unequal' contributions by each side, but each has contributed value to the whole.
The actual contributions are usually not accounted for in a literal ledger. So we often end up with a guy who thinks he's being shortchanged because he created all of the necessary preconditions for a happy, successful marriage, and pulled his weight, and yet gets screwed over for trusting that he would be 'repaid' by his partner with her love and esteem and, eventually, a kid, and yet he's still getting screwed over when it ends.
In short, how does one balance material contributions with, I guess, mostly emotional and intangible but still valuable contributions?
Since the material contributions are legible, those are the ones that end up getting parceled out by the court. So the wife gets a cut of the material contributions made by the husband, but the man doesn't get to take away any of the emotional, intangible elements contributed by her. So he loses both the material wealth AND the intangibles.
You can imagine that this feels unfair.
I don't consider myself a misandrist, but some of you guys make it tough going, and more and more I am grateful to the Lord God Almighty for making me without the wiring to desire and need love and romance, because blow me down, I'd be fucked if I had to rely on a guy for anything from emotional validation on up.
I mean, I've pointed it out before, women end up marrying a corporation (for all pursuits and purposes) and it turns out that is pretty much a dead end for their 'emotional validation.' Eventually the biological clock ticks over, and the corporation will never be able to provide her with kids and the actual long-term loyalty that a good husband would grant.
But men have to match up to the corporation's material benefits while seeking a partner, anyway, because those factors are intangible and rarely counted in the calculus.
Its always and forever a question of 'compared to what?'
I don't think women are doing the math on what they'll get if they stick with MegaCorp for 25 years, laboring dutifully under their manager's eye, then what they'll get if they stick with a Husband for that same period, laboring dutifully under 'his' roof.
It becomes a bit annoying to have to justify men's contributions to upholding the entire edifice of civilization.
On the flip side, women, by dint of bearing and raising children, are obviously and constantly glorified for their contribution. As well they should be.
So men, demanding a little bit more leverage and control of their wealth so they can actually achieve good outcomes for themselves in the world they built seems utterly fair to me.
My actual point is that Divorce laws should really, in actuality, be designed around encouraging marriage and family creation and maintenance of a long-term bond. And OBJECTIVELY they are simply not doing that.
Billionaires getting divorced and splitting 10-12 figure households are a symptom of this, and a particularly noticeable one.
And guys who notice "wait, even the billionaire couldn't keep his wife, what actual chance do I have" are a lot more common than billionaires.
The incentives are simply not aligned. A guy wants a partner, a homemaker, and someone to bear and raise children.
No-Fault Divorce penalizes the guy by forcing him to give up his accumulated wealth and support the wife regardless of how well she actually behaved during the marriage. Whether he got a kid out of it or not.
So he is pretty damn motivated to try to keep the marriage afloat to avoid said penalties.
Divorce penalizes a woman by... ?
What is a woman actually losing out on by initiating divorce?
faceh
27d ago
Sounds like the streamers and their watchers really deserve each other.
Its fair to say that's almost a symbiotic relationship. It just seems obvious that they'd all be a bit better off/happier in a different equilibrium.
There are in fact 'non-toxic' streamers and communities out there, of course!
Its just more common than not that once streamers 'get big' its a ticking clock on when they get outed as either terrible people or they have their big obvious 'sell out' moment.
Getting outed as a terrible person might not even hurt their popularity (I'm thinking of Dr. Disrespect, but there's a lot of them).
I can certainly believe that people, despite having literally an internet full of all sorts of porn at their fingertips, nevertheless prefer hot women streaming video games.
There definitely seems to be a factor where a lot of normies are wired up to perceive themselves as part of a community and having a 'friendship' of sorts with livestreamers, since at least they can 'interact' (using that term pretty damn lightly) with that person and see their impact on the streamer's show.
If you are streaming while wearing makeup and elaborate sexy clothes, then you are already accepting that part of your appeal is that guys will be aroused by your videos.
Yep.
By not having a paywalled explicit channel, you are likely leaving most of the monetarization opportunities on the table. So getting an explicit account where you sell videos of your feet or tits likely has a big payoff.
YEP. I've noticed this is a path that some streamers have taken. Creating actual content is HARD. So a women might get popular for being good at a game, or she's pretty but stays very modest. But how to keep interest in your channel going? See my point about the zero-sum attention economy.
But over time if the popularity starts to taper (or she just wants more money) she'll follow the incentive gradient to risque cosplays, to bikini/pool streams, to lewd but not explicit content, then there's the decent shot she goes from there to straight up porn (and, who knows, maybe escorting behind the scenes). And every step of the way generally being coy and plausibly deniable ("just getting more confident in my body, guis!").
World's oldest profession, after all. Of course when I say "incentive gradient" I mostly mean her overly invested fans who, if they feel like they don't have a shot at dating her, will probably be satisfied just getting to see her naked eventually.
faceh
27d ago
I really, REAAALLLY despise that for any given popular female internet figure, there's at least even odds that their 'main' account, where-ever that may be, is the top of a sales funnel that leads to some kind of sex work at the bottom.
I also despise that the 'meta' for such accounts is almost always to pretend not to have a boyfriend even if they are fucking married, and to deflect but not reject the misguided romantic ambitions of their followers.
And the "joyous" thing about people streaming the entirety of their lives all the time is that when they end up having a meltdown, its aired publicly for drama points too.
Its about the most toxic cycle of drama begetting drama for a hapless but raptly attentive audience while producing nothing of value in the process I could imagine.
Of course, that's humans for you, the evolutionary pressures of tracking social drama for surviving the ancestral environment makes it so we fucking LOVE following popular train wrecks.
faceh
27d ago
Well, Amouranth specifically moved to competing site Kick in exchange for a bunch of money. Looks like she only recently returned.
And not for nothing, Kick's whole value proposition vs. Twitch is that its more lenient with the content it allows, since they are trying to drive traffic to gambling sites.
faceh
27d ago
Yeahhh...
I think there's a lot of work being done by cultural norms of "we are recording you for safety and security purposes, and we will never publish footage except to advance those goals." Hell, nobody is even going to look at that footage except to detect the criminal activity.
And we've been acclimatized out of those norms as high quality digital cameras are now everywhere.
And the understanding of 'privacy' is a bit ambiguous.
For me, I would agree that "I have the right to stop anyone from recording me while I'm out in public" is stupid. But, "I have a reasonable expectation that my face/identity won't be published on the internet if I'm not doing anything dangerous or illegal" is a decent standard, I think.
Otherwise, we kind of move towards a world where everyone dons a disguise out in public just to maintain some semblance of anonymity.
That really depends on what you think the goal of divorce law/alimony is.
Giving them $250 million should set them up for life and is almost certainly sufficient to pay for their 'services' during the marriage. Or if you want to assume the value of their services is inherently equal to his,(as partnerships go) then sure, start with that assumption.
Just understand you're creating an incentive for men to avoid marriage as a institution since it takes most of the control of their wealth away from them at the drop of a hat if they get married before they build their kingdom.
As usual, though, the point is less about billionaires and more about men who enter the marriage expecting to get some level of reliable partner, then realize that under the current legal regime the woman has no obligation to pull her weight, to act respectful towards him, or to even sleep with him, and yet is generally able to file for divorce regardless of how well-behaved he was during the marriage.
Its an inherent asymmetry.
faceh
29d ago
Hard to overstate how much Donald Trump changed the vibe, too.
He really exploited the idea that you can "just say things" and since it appeared that 4chan played a significant role in his rise to power, the norms of free speech were suddenly cast as the enemy of Democracy, somehow.
It all escalated from there, but with his current win (and him going on a revenge tour) there's been some rapid capitulation almost everywhere BUT Reddit.
If Reddit wanted to make a change, they could start by re-opening /r/the_donald.
faceh
29d ago
Yeah, I'm desperately curious as to the sorts of lifestyle accommodations one unlocks when they pass, at a guess, the $50 million net worth mark.
For me, yeah, I think if I could have a dedicated personal assistant, which I'd guess would cost $50k-70k/year for a decently competent one (just googled it, I was almost exactly right), I could cut out SO MUCH CRAP that wastes my time and focus on the highest leverage, most productive, or fun, stuff that I WANT to be doing.
But man, how do you get to the level of wealth quickly if you're merely climbing the corporate ladder? If I start pulling down $250k/yr then it might start to be justifiable (in my mind) to splurge on a dedicated assistant to handle this stuff. And have to try to avoid lifestyle inflation to some degree. But BECAUSE I currently complete many of those tasks myself, I'm somewhat stymied from doing the work that might speed up my progression to higher incomes.
There's got to be an efficient frontier on the curve that I'm not quite hitting. Hmmm.
Wait wait wait, I just realized, under idealized circumstances that approximately what a spouse can help achieve, if you marry well and have a good, cooperative, teammate relationship. That was probably the secret for middle class couples leveraging into higher income brackets.
faceh
29d ago
Yes, the sheer rise in anxiety disorders is testament to that deep problem.
I still feel it, sometimes, when it comes time to turn off the computer and dress up and leave the house the "ugh field" activates. But I know I'll be happier if I take the opportunity.
I've also noticed in myself the tendency to not wanting to show up somewhere unless I can expect there to be decently attractive, possibly single women attending, likely dressed in cute clothing. My guys nights and board games are fun, but I really just want to be able to interact with women more, its the only aspect really missing from my otherwise ideal routine.
And women, of course, are markedly more anxious and flighty these days, so its harder to get them to come out consistently than ever. Ask me how I know.
faceh
29d ago
If it encounters captchas or similar blockades, it politely stops and alerts you so you can help solve them before it continues.
How this will impact website's security measures going forward, I do no know.
faceh
29d ago
Pretty sure there are now multiple bot accounts that just repost the most-upvoted content on a sub from like a year ago, then add in the same top-upvoted comments on said post.
And from what I can tell Twitter is currently the place that most tightly interfaces with real life events in terms of both causing and quickly reacting to them.
I do work from the assumption that having a ton of power probably feels a bit pointless if you aren't able to flex said power to flout the rules that bind us mere mortals, and there are so very few strong taboos left these days.
More options
Context Copy link