This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
My best answer to this is college students because 7 year age gaps are the most fertile according to the data. But also, whoever they want, since I can't find justification for ever making sex with a 15 year old a crime.
My problem with this idea is that legality, while originally designed to reflect morality, inevitably influences it. Both in the "illegal, thus immoral" direction, and, what's more important in this case, "legal, thus moral".
This might be literally a first-world problem, since countries with less pervasive state influence do not conflate legality and morality equally easily, but in a place like the US I'd rather have more fine-grained AoC laws, so that fathers don't have to resort to moral, but illegal acts to keep scumbags away.
18 seems like a young age to lose paternal authority over an unmarried daughter, if that's what you value. Somehow I don't think AOC laws actually are for this though. What about an age of consent of 15, but parents can veto their daughters' relationships until they are 18, or even 21? Veto means they can press charges against the man for violating their authority over their daughter.
The way the law works now, it doesn't protect paternal authority. Daughters will just do what they will with other teenagers, who are immune from AOC prosecution. Then when they turn 18, they will do whatever they please. The law mainly functions to prevent loving, family-condoned relationships between 20-something men and teenage girls.
Mate, please stop explaining. You just sound more and more creepy the more you go on about older men and younger girls. Seven year age gaps can be a huge gulf, or not so much, depending on the age of both parties. 15 and 21 are two different phases of life. 22 and 29 are getting nearer in experiences. 30 and 37 are fine.
10 and 17 is not fine. 12 and 19 is not fine. And I've found that arguments around "why not 15?" tend to drift downwards rather than upwards in the "if 15, why not..." later development of the argument. If 15, why not 14? If 14, why not 13? If 13, why not 12 - after all in the Classical world 12 year olds were married! (as you have used as an example yourself).
As to "family condoned", that depends on the family. Were I the parent of a young daughter, I'd be highly suspicious of any 20-25 year old guy sniffing around my 13-15 year old daughter.
As age falls, the number of men who are disrupted decreases, while the reasons for disrupting increase. Eventually, you get children who don't desire sex, can't get pregnant, and don't understand it. It's pretty clear that the age of consent should be higher than that number, and that number is probably greater than 10 or 11. Probably it's between 13 and 15, if you look at the recent modern world. I personally think 13 is too young for sex because I think it's probably the minimum age a girl can really fall in love with a man, she's very inexperienced at that age, and any man (or boy) ought to wait and meet her family before taking her virginity, which she should definitely have. And 13 year olds still have mild intelligence deficit compared to adults that goes away by 15. If I had to pick an exact age, I'm split between 14 and 15. Maybe I would pick 14.5 because it would be funny and it would highlight the arbitrary nature of the law. "How old are you?" "14." "Which type of 14??" LOL
Paedophiles out there claiming six year olds experience sexual desire and are competent to have loving, consensual, sexual relationships with adults. Your arguments that "I'm not one of those guys" do not convince me on the grounds you are putting them. And it's becoming more and more evident your concern is "men can't get young pussy" and not "girls are being artificially debarred from forming permanent attachments leading to marriage and family".
People who find a reason to say five or six when I say 15 are simply FUDing. I'm increasingly convinced that nobody is actually attracted to pre-adolescent children, dogs, or decayed corpses. The roots of sexual behavior towards these are rather extreme horniness and other mental illnesses. If true, this would imply it's straight FUD to talk about "Paedophiles out there claiming six year olds experience sexual desire" -- this is not a real thing outside of a couple of shock artists. Equating it to a 20 year old dating a 15 year old is just incorrect.
Since you're so concerned about the poor men who are unfairly punished for their natural sexual attraction towards girls, here's a sad and sorry case of another normal man being convicted of a crime that is no crime.
How very wrong of our judgemental society to punish this man for acting on his natural attraction to the girl, who was even older than 15! Plus the hussy probably enticed and tempted him, and then tried to play the victim!
can you understand that this would have been illegal even if she were 76? this has nothing to do with the age of consent because she did not consent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link