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.
This kind of BS is why I have so much trouble caring about the Epstein files at all (as in the below CW post). I don't feel like doing any kind of deep-dive research into them, which means I'm left with coverage from the mainstream media. And the mainstream media will unashamedly lump together "a prepubescent girl was thrown into a sex dungeon for months and repeatedly raped by X" and "a willing 17-year-old prostitute was hired by X" under the category of "X is a pedophile rapist!!!". But I just do not give two shits about the latter; biologically speaking it's a pretty normal thing for humans to do, and not even especially immoral.
When a 26yo dating a 19yo is enough to trigger serious legal action, it's just one more reason not to trust the system. Maybe there are dangerous pedophiles out there that are being caught, but without constant fact-checking effort that I'm not willing to expend, how could I even tell? I kind of suspect that abolishing all sexual-deviancy laws except for undeniable cases of rape/child abuse would be a net positive for America.
Someone informed on them and because he was a teacher and she was a student, they had to investigate. This case may be innocent enough, but on the other hand when it is students and teachers, there has to be a lot of carefulness by the school and everyone associated with it because that could be "26 year old dates 19 year old but they never interacted at all while she was in school" or it could be "26 year old is grooming 16 year old to be in relationship when they're legal" and if you just shrug and go "nah, this doesn't seem that bad" you could be ignoring something that is that bad or worse.
I hope the above paragraph made sense.
More options
Context Copy link
Well the attendees to Epstein's island could have legally had sex with any number of 18 year old prostitutes in any number of jurisdictions including in the US, so I say let them hang! I agree with you that there is a distinction between pedophilia and being attracted to a 17 year old, however, I question your lack of thinking of where these "willing" 17 year old prostitutes appeared from there's really no need to allow 17 year old children to prostitute themselves and indeed any form of prostitution is illegal in the vast majority of the US. But these were some of the most powerful men in the world they could easily go to a place with legal prostitutions or advocate for the abolishment of anti-prostitution laws. But no they all flew to an island to cheat on their wives with teenager. So I don't see the need to defend them, and they certainly wouldn't defend a pleb like you if the police arrested you for soliciting.
More options
Context Copy link
They don't do this because the former doesn't happen. A pedophile describes someone attracted to teenagers almost-surely. The baby-rapist is a canard invented to shame young men out of dating 17 year olds. You can see this in action on this form; I said the age of consent should be 14 or 15, and the only objections couldn't stop talking about 4 and 5 year olds.
Fuck you, friend, and I say that with all compassion and love. Baby-rapists do, unhappily, exist. If you want to die on the hill of "30 year old men should be able to bang 15 year old girls, the hot little sluts shaking their booties at the poor innocent adult man and tempting him with their lush, nubile, fresh bodies into a frenzy of lust!" well go right ahead, but don't try and pretend there is no such real crime as paedophilia.
More options
Context Copy link
Actual paedophiles (in the sense of men primarily attracted to prepubescent children) exist, we even had one on the Motte. But they are vanishingly rare - the number of actual prepubescent kids molested by actual paedophiles each year in the UK appears to be in single figures.
Men fucking sexually mature teenage girls is illegal for good reasons, but it isn't really deviant - ephebophilia is just normal straight male sexuality, and 13 year old girls with periods used to be marriageable essentially everywhere (though rarely married in practice in cisHajnal cultures).
The other thing that is an unfortunate aspect of normalish sexuality is pederasty. The age at which a boy becomes attractive as a twink to a man who wants to fuck twinks is even younger than the age at which girls become attractive to ephebophiles - Greek boylove started when the boy was 12 or occasionally even younger. I think social scripts around modern gayness-based male homosexuality (versatile means bottom!) have developed in a way which mean that Greek-style boylove is no longer considered a normal part of male homosexuality and this has done more than horror at paedophilia to get NAMBLA kicked out of Pride.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link