site banner
PaperclipPerfector  21hr ago (text post)   507 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for January 2, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I have to be real with you — infants being abused by their pederast father is not my idea of "fun".

I said "hilariously hentai facts". I would not be surprised to find a similar storyline in a literal hentai manga.

Firstly, in the hentai, the acts described/drawn are entirely fictional, whilst this case actually happened in reality (and actually even the hentai stuff is controversial - see the debate on loli/shota and AI child porn)

And regarding whether this sort of thing is actually that bad (as you have argued in your defense downthread), you said:

It isn't as if he caused severe injuries to the three-year-old by inserting his penis into her vagina

There are 3 pretty standard arguments for this:

  1. It causes severe psychological harm to the child
  2. Children are (definitionally) unable to consent, so any child-adult sex is auto-rape.
  3. Sexual degeneracy like this harms society because it screws with the social fabric (though this argument is only made by right-wingers)

This case actually seems like an excellent counterexample to (2). Indeed, prior to this hearing about this case, I was only open to considering the possibility of young children (~6yo+) being capable of consent. But this seems like a very clear example of non-verbal consent from toddlers ("Defendant then allowed both children to lick the honey off his penis.")

And I'm generally pretty skeptical on all of those points, and suspect anti-pedosexual sentiments are driven in no small part by irrational disgust towards unusual sexualities.

...that being said, this is the Friday Fun (i.e. no culture war) Thread. And so you shouldn't really be bringing up this question (which, irregardless of how reasonable the response is, does evoke an offence/disgust response in many readers), even by proxy (but you could totally bring it up in the CW thread, and I encourage you to do so)

I can understand including some of the more morbid cases weeks when the pickings are slim, but there were three other cases this week. I don't see any need to include this, and, Hentai or no, these facts aren't hilarious. Especially since people like me don't even really know what Hentai is and thus have no frame of reference for what you're talking about.

Hentai or no, these facts aren't hilarious. Especially since people like me don't even really know what hentai is and thus have no frame of reference for what you're talking about.

I strongly disagree. People joke all the time about how women allegedly coat their vaginas with peanut butter in order to trick their dogs to eating them out, and this is practically the same thing. It isn't as if he caused severe injuries to the three-year-old by inserting his penis into her vagina.

Bestiality's a 'funny joke' because as much as people say they care about animals, they don't really care about animals that much unless they're more than a little nuts, and the possibility that someone they know might even consider it is pretty unimaginable. There was a big scandal in the furry fandom a little under a decade ago about a zoophilia-sadist ring (cw: no matter how strong your stomach, you don't want to look to close into this, yes, insert 'beating dead horse' joke here), and it got a lot of critical attention from furries (and even some other zoophiles), but as far as I can tell the only criminal convictions involved literal serial killers of animals or separate possession of CSAM. There was a lot of conduct there that was physically damaging or even likely fatal to the animal, but ultimately, it's something normal people see as gross because of what the bad actors are doing to themselves, less than what's happening to the animal.

Animal protective services aren't going to pull custody from Hassan Piker; that doesn't make putting a shock collar on a kid funny.

Beyond that, a lot of the post-1990s changes to attitudes about abuse of very young children were driven by vastly increased understanding of what psychological impact these actions had on their victims. The Breendoggle or various priest abuses had a number of different reasons they were able to shovel themselves under the rug, but one of the biggest is that it was largely assumed that victims would forget, merely not understand, or at worst become 'precocious': 'corruption of a minor' as a charge was a lot more literally considered than modern readers think. But a significant portion of human victims end up pretty messed up by stuff that doesn't leave bruises or injuries, especially when it's committed by a trusted figure.

Man, one of my guilty pleasures is watching YouTube videos of sentencing and parole hearings. Often they involve child molesters who did shit like this. The chomos (or their lawyers) tend to give very similar arguments to what you said.

I don't know what circles you're running in if you hear that joke "all the time", but either way, you're talking about the theoretical sexual abuse of a dog and conflating it with the actual sexual abuse of small children.

I don't know what circles you're running in if you hear that joke "all the time"

4chan. I think it was also featured in Not Another Teen Movie back in 2001, so my impression is that it's a totally mainstream joke.

you're talking about the theoretical sexual abuse of a dog and conflating it with the actual sexual abuse of small children

There are degrees of "sexual abuse". I don't think this is any more extreme than how people laugh about underage boys who get the opportunity to have sex with female teachers.

If the best you can come up with is a message board notorious for offensive content and a movie that came out 25 years ago it's safe to say that this isn't part of normal polite discourse, and certainly isn't fun. The guy got a 15 year sentence for a first offense. As part of a plea deal. That alone should tell you how serious the conduct is in terms of degree.

Don't post that shit here. I think you go to efforts to find cases that contain 'legal interests' when your interest is obviously prurient (like you asking posters what they think about during masturbation, or that other case of sexual abuse you found 'funny'). Then you sandwich it all in a big post where other idiots respond to other parts of the post.

I checked all the opinions posted by New Jersey courts in the past week, plus some Pennsylvania appellate decisions, and came up with three opinions—one that was funny (supermarket), one that was interesting (developer), and one that was both funny and interesting (honey). I decided to add a judicial-adjacent newspaper article that I happened to have read, and to hold over for next week three non-judicial items that I also wanted to post. You can believe that or not.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats