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 -
26 year old man arrested, facing 20 years in prison, for consensual romantic relationship with 19 year old
Cody Pester is facing the charge of "sexual abuse by a school worker" for a fully consensual relationship with a 19 year old who was not enrolled at his school or in his class. He is a 6th grade teacher and began texting the woman when she graduated from the high school attached to the junior high where he taught. He was never the teacher of this woman, since he had only taught 6th grade for a few years, based on his age. There is no evidence that he is a danger to any of his 6th graders, but nonetheless he's been fired for his job, seemingly for wanting to start a family with this 19 year old, who is only 7 years his junior. 7 year age gaps are very common in marriage and are even maximally fertile, according to a recent article. So, based on evopsych, this is likely what he was trying to accomplish. This seems like a prime example of severely criminalizing normal male heterosexuality and reproductive instinct.
To summarize, this law is excessively punitive, to the point of violating the 8th amendment cruel and unusual punishments clause. 20 years in prison for a consensual relationship between two legal adults is out of control. It is also dishonestly named, because the charge is called "sexual abuse by a school worker," but he did not commit this crime as stated because he did not have sex with her at any point when he was a school worker relevant to her. She was simply not enrolled in school when it occurred. The charge should be renamed "consensual sex by a teacher with a consenting and legally adult graduate of that high school who did not have the teacher as an authority figure at any point."
I think this shows that a strong motive in age of consent laws is preventing disruption to the education of young women. It's not really about age gaps or abuse, since the laws don't criminalize those things. 18 and 50 is the same as 17 and 50; it's no difference to an old man. There are entirely separate laws which criminalize actual sexual abuse. And if the laws were about mental capacity to consent, they would be set at 14 or 15. Setting it up at 18 and having extra extensions for teachers makes it obviously about defending girls from marriage to young men until they complete high school. In fact, I read online that the 90 day clause was specifically because romantic relationships like this might derail a girl's college plans. In 90 days, she will be gone to a university, where her professor can date her. This is fine, since it keeps her on campus. Her marrying a mid 20s bachelor at her local high school might make her a 20 year old stay at home mother, which is apparently a felony now. In fact, a lot of "teen pedo" panic seems to be memetically descended from late 20th century "teen pregnancy" panic, which was really about educational disruption, and not about teen pregnancy being dangerous (it's not, the girls were not dying, instead they were kept from school by babies). As someone who doesn't believe in the traditional school system, it seems absurd, cruel, and evil to have laws cruelly penalizing traditional alternatives to lengthy education.
Good.
Also, nominative determinism claims another victim?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link