site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   2383 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for August 21, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

we live in a democracy, but people secretly disagree with the law, but they don't vote it out because ... groupthink. no further mechanics given, just somehow a minority can mind control a majority.

  1. Kohlberg IV is a thing, and a thing most people never move past. Kohlberg IV morality is based on the law, in a direct inversion of the correct relation that the law is based on morality. This makes removing unjust laws really hard, because the Kohlberg-IV people will defend the law because it's the law.

  2. Most people are icebergs. What you see is the most socially-desirable part of them. If they see that you have a larger amount of stuff showing than they do, they usually conclude not that you are made of styrofoam instead (that you are more honest), but that your iceberg is much larger (that you have far-worse stuff that you're not sharing).

I'm sure you can sketch out how both of these relate to the difficulty of rolling back age of consent laws, particularly since a politician has to publically propose lowering them.

We have an empirical example that is related: LGBT rights. Considering they could get sodomy legalized, surely normal straight men can get romantic relationships with postpubescent females legalized right? It surely can't be as bad as coming out of the closet in 1960, to come out as straight, right?

My point is your reasons do not explain why there is a force pushing the age of consent up. If there were no such force, you might be able to explain why it doesn't decay instantly with these factors (insofar as there is evidence for them. I agree with the first one, mostly. The second, I don't know where it comes from or how to prove it). But it's not decaying, it's increasing in strength. Only I so far am explaining why that might be.

IIRC Japan's basically the only Western country to have actually raised the age of consent in the last 100 years, although I could be wrong.

Victorian prudishness is, of course, legendary.

Oh, and I forgot, there's the "overprotective parent" voting bloc opposing lowering the AoC.

Several US states raised it from 14 and 15, some raised from 16 to 18, France raised it from 13 to 15, so did several other European countries. It's a global trend and still going on.

Japan's basically the only Western country to have actually raised the age of consent in the last 100 years, although I could be wrong.

Trivial example: Canada.

However, I posit that across the entire West the age of consent is mostly a distraction. It is currently "infinite"- for consenting to sex is impossible if you are permitted to revoke that consent retroactively, which is law in basically every country, including the US.

All sex is sex work to a feminist, and once you notice these are sex worker protection laws the reasoning becomes a lot clearer. What worker protection law has become weaker in the West in the last 100 years? (And sure, there's always offshoring where you have sex, but at least one Commonwealth country claims extraterritoriality for violating minimum-age laws, because of course they do. They don't do that for worker protection laws re: offshoring, but gynosupremacists by definition take for granted the work the male sex does.)

there's the "overprotective parent" voting bloc opposing lowering the AoC.

Traditionalist fathers create feminist women, feminist women create traditionalist fathers.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats