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 -
It was true for me.
I don't know what emotionally independent means, financial independence doesn't matter, 99% of people don't have this.
I hope all 14 year olds understand pregnancy and STDs. Is there any other harm? If a man wears a condom, what's the big harm exactly?
Great.
I think you misread me, I was complaining that they don't prohibit it.
Having a strong sense of identity, of self-worth, being able to handle big problems like running out of money, not having to rely on your parents for typical socialization or emotional support. Things like that.
Are we speaking past each other? By financial independence, I mean not being dependent on anyone else for money, and the typical signs of this are things like having your own job and owning your own place. I bring up financial independence because a classic groomer tactic is to shower a child with gifts they wouldn't be able to attain themself. An adult is financially independent and can just buy whatever they want so such a tactic would not work on them.
I find it hard to believe that you at 14 years of age could just buy whatever you wanted and wouldn't be susceptible to a grooming tactic like that.
Sex is a hugely emotional and intimate act and there's more to it than just wearing a condom. A child is highly likely to feel complex emotions they hadn't felt before if they end up in a sexual encounter, and highly likely to want to back out and stop, but also highly likely to be too scared to say no. The harm is in having sex with the child when they don't want it, and the subsequent emotional damage, feelings of powerlessness, lowered self-worth, etc. not uncommon when someone gets raped.
Arbitrary line.
How is this different than the usual courting of women by well-off men?
Okay, then prosecute for forced rape then. If it's not forced rape, what is the issue? Even causing emotional damage, feelings of powerlessness, lowered self-worth is not a felony level harm. Intelligent motte commenters and society make me feel like that all the time. Am I raped?
So is every other law. That doesn't mean they're not useful or worth keeping around.
An adult doesn't place the same value on gifts as a child would. A child would do literally anything for a copy of the latest hot video game franchise they enjoy. An adult knows there's more to life than shiny video games and if given the same gift, sure they might feel obligated to do something in return (such as sex) but it's not as overwhelmingly likely as a child would. In other words, an adult is mature.
Rape, by definition, is forced. There's no such thing as "non-forced" rape. This is a confusing term to use.
I don't think Motte commenters and society in general would cause (to a reasonable person) the extreme level of emotional damage, powerlessness, and lowered self-worth that someone gets from being raped. Is it a nonzero amount? Sure. Is it close in orders of magnitude? Not even in the same ballpark.
They vary in their cost/benefit and arbitraryness, and my position is this law is all cost, no benefit, and the most arbitrary one every dreamed up. So it's not worth keeping around.
Okay but then I wasn't a child at 14 because I wasn't like this.
Then there's no victim and no crime.
How would you know? How did you measure feelings? The one study on this topic says trauma from consensual sex is fake.
The benefits are that 14 year olds don't get raped. What are the costs, exactly? That adults don't get to fuck 14 year olds? I think most adults are fine dating someone their age and not having sex with children. I don't think that people are entitled to sex in general nor should they be.
Society and laws are not like math where if you find one counterexample the entire premise is invalid. If you weren't like that at 14, then good for you. You were still a child, though, and that doesn't mean that the vast majority of children aren't susceptible to grooming tactics.
The good thing about having a standard based on a reasonable person is that there's no need to measure the feelings of anyone to prove that a crime happened, we can just refer to what a reasonable person would feel instead. So if someone gets raped, we don't have to attempt to measure how exactly raped the victim was feeling by using brain scans or whatever science you think is applicable. We just say that a reasonable person would feel extremely traumatized and emotionally damaged from rape, and prosecute the crime accordingly.
Which study? And just because there may be only n=1 study in a topic doesn't mean it's accurate or reliable.
But we already have laws against real rape.
Innocent people are put in prison for doing nothing wrong, more people are discouraged from reproducing. The main cost is to young men. People put in prison for this are mainly under 21 (!), and almost all are under 25, so, basically kids themselves, just older. And they are put in prison because following the law can be costly for them: if you are a 20 year old man, and you have the preference that your mate be younger than you, which is a pretty universal preference, you face an extremely unnaturally restricted pool of available mates. The most fertile age gap in marriage is 6 or 7 years, so in nature, 20 year olds will date down into the early teens. In many places, they are restricted from going 18, and they face reductions of more than 50% of their dating pool in most places, even if they can go slightly under 18. Whereas for „creepy old men,“ the law is extremely lenient. They can be in their 50s and date their daughter's high school friend, as long as she turned 18 a few months ago. Then it's all clear!
They are if the laws and society are reasonable. If they are fundamentally unreasonable, then yes, they lack that property. But laws that are unreasonable are unjust and a society that is unreasonable is wicked and stupid and should lose political power.
I haven't seen any evidence that the vast majority of 14 year olds are susceptible to grooming tactics. The only evidence I'm aware of regarding this was denounced by the US Congress for showing that sexual trauma from underage sex is a myth. Isn't weird that a bunch of politicians thought they could denounce an empirical study? Might as well denounce 2+2=4 or the existence of matter. It was published back in the 90s I think in a leading psychological journal by real academics. Since then, no evidence to the contrary has been produced. Do you know what that looks like?
I don't think a reasonable woman feels raped from voluntary sex at 14. Tons of people agree with me, which is why the majority of polities on Earth allow 14 year olds to consent to sex with somebody. Some let it be anybody, most allow a small age range. If she isn't traumatized by banging a 16 year old then she won't be traumatized by banging a 20 year old. If anything, 16 year olds treat girls like shit while 20 year olds commit more.
It was an N=8500 meta-analysis. Yikes.
I still don't know why you keep qualifying it with "real" rape. What kind of rape isn't real rape? All of the rape I'm talking about is real. Regardless, society has found that general laws against rape are insufficient to protect children from being raped, so it has enacted more. It's no different than having male and female-only locker rooms to prevent sexual harassment, even though sexual harassment is already prohibited. I don't think there's ever been a society that has found it so virtuous to have the fewest laws possible, and I don't think such a society would be workable in the long run.
This does not match the cases I've seen. Almost all of the cases I know of regarding people that have been put in jail for having sexual contact with a minor are pedophiles who are older than 30. I'm also curious to see exactly which cases you would point to to support the assertion that innocent people have been put in prison for doing nothing wrong, because I suspect that they, in fact, have done something wrong.
If you're college age, you're probably dating other college age adults and at basically any college you have a sufficiently big dating pool of them. I don't think this is an actual problem.
How? Are college students regularly meeting and talking with high schoolers or something? Why can't they just date other college students?
Is this a problem for you? I thought by your position that you would be celebrating this fact.
I don't think there has ever been a society that operated this way, even despite the massive amounts of people who want it to work that way. For example, the death of George Floyd resulting in the rise of calls to abolish the police. The police wasn't really abolished anywhere (thankfully) because we don't operate on the principle of "fuck up once = your institution/law gets abolished".
I think it should take a lot more than one counterexample before we declare a law unreasonable and unjust and the society that enforces that law unreasonable, wicked, stupid, and ought to be losing political power.
What kind of evidence would convince you? Have you tried, you know, interacting with them?
There are entirely valid reasons to dismiss empirical studies. It's not even nearly the same as denying 2+2=4 or the existence of matter. I don't think citing studies is quite the slam-dunk argument you make it out to be. There are many ways to go wrong with studies and this is especially true in the social sciences.
That doesn't mean any adult is allowed to have sex with 14 year olds. I also don't think the standard by which we should have laws is "what are the other nations on Earth doing?"
This seems like a severe and unjustified leap in logic. 20 year olds are a lot more mature, and it's easier for them to manipulate a 14 year old than a 16 year old could. It's not as if the 20 year old is just the 16 year old but with "+4" added to the age. Getting older changes people and makes them different. Age is not just a number.
A 20 year old guy "committing more" to a 14 year old girl just means he's grooming her.
First, even the Wikipedia page you linked lists rebuttals and criticisms of the study, including studies that contradicted it. Beware the man of one study. Again, I don't think that citing studies is the slam-dunk argument you think it is when there are so many ways to go wrong with studies. I don't think this is a question that can be resolved with "just one more study, bro."
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