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.
It makes sense to prevent sexual relationships between a teacher and their students. The 90 day limit should be even longer for such cases, at least a year. It's way too big a conflict of interest to allow that for teachers. It's also a breach of trust of the teacher's position. However, the fact that this law applies to any teacher and student regardless of whether the teacher ever taught the student seems misguided.
He wasn't her teacher.
How did he meet her? Was it outside of school, or was it "she attended the high school beside the primary school where he taught"? Because my old school was the same: primary school on one side of the road, secondary school attached to it on the other side.
Maybe Mr. Pester the Molester didn't teach her, but knew her from being in the school area. If he started dating her after she graduated and she wasn't even graduated three months, then that sounds more like him hitting on her before hand but waiting until she was legal before he dipped his wick, as it were.
If it could be shown that he had no idea who she was and only met her in the grocery store or someplace, okay I'll bite. But as it stands, it sounds bit like "26 year old has his eye on 17 (or 16? or however old she was when he started work in the school) student, starts a relationship, waits until she's legal to bang her" and that's "teacher grooms student" however you wrap it.
Did Emmanuel Macron's parents 'punish' him for trying to break him and his married with kids his age teacher up? We know they persisted until he was legally old enough and they eventually got married, but I don't think anyone is going to accuse the parents of 'cruel and unusual punishment' there:
I mean, this is the part that is making me go "hmmm":
Same day she graduated high school? So same day she was legal and no longer (as he thought) liable to be classed as a student where he's a teacher? Yeah, that's cutting it a leeetle too close to satisfy me.
EDIT: And guess what, Deep is omitting little bits from the story:
So, while he may not have been her teacher, he did encounter her while she was still at school and we don't know how much contact (grooming) he had with her.
Police update from January 2026 and one question was if the girl was 18 then or is 18 now. Age of consent in Nebraska is 16, so he's clear on that.
So on the face of it, young teacher has his eye on student, waits until she graduates to start dating her, but moves it up a bit too fast before the three month limit is up. Whether you think this is potentially grooming or an adult relationship and he's being victimised, that's up to everyone's opinion.
The curious point is, who informed on them? Parents? Girl herself (did he dump her and this is revenge)? Jealous ex-boyfriend or girlfriend of either party?
If he wasn't her teacher or instructor, then no, it's not.
From what stories online I can find, he was (1) a high school wrestling coach as well as being sixth grade teacher and (2) it's reported they met at athletic events. So presumably if she was on a school sports team, or attending events where there were school teams competing, that's how they met even though he didn't teach her in class. And that's more than just "they hooked up after she graduated high school", so there is definitely a whiff of "maybe he cultivated her" in the air.
How old she was when they met at these athletic events, or how long the friendship leading to romance was going on before she graduated, they started communicating via text in May 2025 and then in July 2025 they had sex, I don't know. But it does sound more on the end of the scale of "he persuaded her into a relationship and then sex" rather than the end of the scale "they met outside of school and had never had any contact prior to that".
She's 17, he's a teacher (but a young male teacher), that kind of attention is flattering. And the possibility there is that there is enough lingering deference to authority figure from school that maybe she wasn't able to tell him no.
I don't know. Nobody knows for sure. Maybe she was happy with the entire thing and doesn't feel that she was pressured into it! The intriguing part of the story is 'who was the mysterious informant who made the complaint, and what were their motives'?
The charge is "inappropriate relationship" and nothing more serious:
If he was supervising her or coaching, it'd be something else, but it seems they just met bc they were both involved in wrestling in some way. Thinking a guy who's just what, 26 is a creep for liking a 17 year old is just nuts.
I don't think we need to infantilize teenagers nor demonize adults who find them attractive. And no, I'm not saying that because I like teens - probably like them less than a median guy. I just dislike this bullshit and anti-biological sanctimony.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, the law applying to this case seems misguided.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link