Having sex with your peers is are appropriate teenage behavior. Being preyed upon by pedophiles isn't. Being taught about selling your body also isn't. I'm not sure where you're having problems "being fair" here.
14 year olds are children, not adults, and whether they are attracted to adults isn’t the concern. The fact that you think the problem here is that society won’t allow children to act on their attraction to adults - and not that children should not fuck adults - is a massive self-report.
I think the assumptions you made is that 1, they were peers and 2, that they regret it in hindsight. Im still in the male/no category, but even with their much older and more mature brains they still think that was a consensual interaction.
Im just thinking the wider possibilities and Ideas because, let's be honest, we're not discussing either a possibility or policy change - its just not going to happen.
One was happily fucking her way through men double and triple her age within the first 6 months and had the only regret of an STD - why should she not have been able to take 10 mill for something she was going to do anyway?Does being paid suddenly make it not OK?
The fact that you're trying to paint being anti-statutory rape as misogynistic and heavily imply "the left believes boys who are raped by adults aren't victims/that adult women having sex with kids isn't rape" is... yikes. No, children (regardless of sex or gender of anyone involved) cannot consent to sex with adults and yes, children who are groomed will naturally be more likely to see their grooming as normal since it was literally intertwined with the critical period of mental development in their lives. You can make literally anything seem "normal" or "okay" to a lot of people if you can convince them it's okay when they're young. Your pedophilia & rape apologia is disgusting, Jesus Christ. You're actually arguing that abuse victims/nonconsenting people having sex aren't victims because they can't accept that they were manipulated. That doesn't even only affect children, but abused people in general. This isn't even strictly a left-right thing, people from fucking every part of the political spectrum are wondering wtf is wrong with you after this. Ain't none of the right-wingers I know advocating for the Epsteins and the Dr. Disrespects of the world, even though I'm from the god damn rural south where children marrying adults is legal and middle-school aged kids can legally bang a typical high school graduate.
I also want to add, for anyone struggling with understanding this or how sexual abuse can harm minors, please read The Body Keeps the Score. Sexual abuse has the same effects on kids as active war combat and torture. Imo it could easily be considered torture. There are automatic things your brain does that keep you alive in these situations and protect you mentally later. But it comes at a cost and your body leaves clues. No one is unaffected by sexual abuse, and all sexual interactions between minors and adults are sexual abuse.
This guy also has a whole post on Substack complaining that the left is too wary of age gaps in relationships and that this is an "attack on heterosexuality" or whatever. It's kind of funny how these "anti woke" types will decry that queer people are all groomers and yet proclaim that age gaps and adults dating teenagers is part of heterosexual culture under the same breath.
Because the only thing that's keeping them from the most depraved things humans can do is the laws. They grew up wrong. The rest of us are asking to live our authentic lives and they can't think of anything that would stop us, upon living our authentic lives, from committing depraved acts because that's what they would do if the laws allowed it. We ask to be allowed to have healthy relationships between consenting adults and they see a dangerous precedent that once we're allowed to do that, then what else are we allowed to do. Its from a basic difference in where they think ethics and morality come from. I think ethics and morality come from within ourselves and that laws should be written to establish communal protections that allow people to achieve true freedom from oppression. They believe ethics and morality exist separate from humanity and laws exist to ensure intrinsically bad people (everyone) remains moral. Within that group, the repressives we're talking about in this post are truly the most dangerous.
Look. All this is super complicated and I'm realizing I'm over simplifying entire systems of ethics it took me 35 pages single spaced to describe in college. Its valuable to have discussions about where ethics come from when discussing politics because ultimately that's what you actually vote on and about
There is a loooooooooooooong fucked up history of this being sanctioned by organized religions of all types. It stems from the patriarchal ideal woman being a baby factory and is absolutely a barbaric practice. The men in these religions are conditioned to be interested in young virginal girls that they call women but treat like property.
I think it must be fairly normal to wonder things like this. Once I saw a video of a man standing on a busy sidewalk offering passersby the opportunity to shoot a staple gun into his bare chest for a dollar or so. It was immediately fascinating. The proposition was so direct: pay money to inflict pain. And people were taking him up on it!
Interesting, sort of in the same way that this Twitter guy's question is interesting. The same way other moral thought experiments like "the trolley problem" are interesting.
What do you think about the parallel I was trying to draw between the video I mentioned and this guy's question about paying for rape? I thought the reason that someone's interest could be caught by the video is similar in nature to the reasons someone might wonder "is it okay to pay to hurt someone"? And that train of thought leads naturally enough to "Well how much harm is permissible for what amount of money?" which leads naturally enough to imagining specific circumstances.
And those trains of thought are similar to the thought behind people's ancient musings about other tricky question of morality like the trolley problem. It's not peak philosophy it's just ordinary human thought. You shouldn't be so afraid or repulsed by it or whatever.
The question reads like a sexual fantasy, to be clear. It doesn't read like a normal innocent question. It reads like he thinks a LOT about how he can rape kids and get away with it socially, hence the poll. It does not read innocently. It is entirely too specific.
You're probably right about this specific dude's motivations for posing the question, but I think I am right that this type of thought is entirely normal and even common to have. You are right about the dismissiveness too, sorry.
Just chiming in to say I think you're right in that these types of thought experiments pop into people's heads pretty regularly, albeit with way less "trying to justify a creepy sex fantasy" intent like the public poll post seems to have.
Though I have to question why it was public in the first place. I don't know who the poster is or if it's their real name, but what if it's less "projection" and more "morbid curiosity" in seeing just how many people would answer yes to this heinous question? There is some merit in gauging reactions to this from a social psychology point of view (even if this is an non-scientific example).
Follow-up thought. Without morbid thought experiments, how do people create horror stories and gritty crime dramas like L&O:SVU when a story has no particular real life basis? I'm not sure it's wholly possible in a fictional novel or show. There's a reason people eat crime dramas up; it's fascinating and horrifying to see how far a real and fictionalized human will go in various circumstances.
In a way, it's a manifestation of the "call of the void" situation, where an intrusive thought (what if I jump off this bridge right now? what happens if I yank the steering wheel driving 50mph? spook a herd of grazing horses? slap grandpa upside the head? while out hunting??) so I think its purpose is more to keep you aware of harzards in whatever the situation may be. Avoidance through sudden acknowledgement of the risk.
Again, I don't recognize this person or know any background, but maybe they posed the question as a wacky means of self-preservation on a broader level? As if the poller thought, "How many of my viewers would prostitute out their child if given the most forgiving, financially advantageous, and seemingly consensual circumstances?" to figure out how worried they should be about a certain percentage of their friends, neighbors, and/or followers. Avoidance through asking weird questions publicly.
Edit: Holy ship I managed to write a whole novel on my thought experiment about thought experiments ahh^ahh.^
The train of thought that youtube story leads me to is not 'how much harm is permissible' but 'why are humans such vile creatures?'. Does everbody just love the thought of hurting others? Is this normal? Why the fuck would anyone want to staple some guys chest?
Lol no. If this was something I thought was said in "good faith," then it would be fine to discuss. However, I don't think it was said in good faith and I think the person was being intentionally disgusting. It's not ordinary human thought. But thanks for being so dismissive.
"How we discovered science" this is such a stupid statement. Nonsensical.
It was a woman. Who figured out we could drink other animal milks first, by watching a calf drink it. She probably needed it for a human baby. A lot of stuff that doesn't make sense to men makes sense to women.
And it is a weird and boring question in the OP. He wants to rape a girl for money. Gee, that's never been asked before. What a deep philospher.
It was a woman. Who figured out we could drink other animal milks first, by watching a calf drink it. She probably needed it for a human baby. A lot of stuff that doesn’t make sense to men makes sense to women.
that seems plausible. I would imagine this happened on pretty early in human history, but it would have to be late enough that we had somewhat domesticated animals.
And it is a weird and boring question in the OP. He wants to rape a girl for money.
it's certainly weird, but so are a lot of questions, and it's boring, but then again, when are questions ever exciting lol.
As for philosophy, the single most intriguing question that has ever been asked is quite literally "what is the meaning of life"
You got way too hung on their example. The point was science is tinkering and following weird curiosities but with extra steps. Virtually every major innovation in the last century (for most of civilisation I would argue) has been a result of indirect tinkering, or benefitted from a completely unrelated field.
You were in such a rush to defend their point, you missed mine. Which is that pseudoscience and pseudointellectualism look exactly like this - made up bullshit based in nothing. I'm not "too hung up" on their examples - that's exactly how I'm showing their nonsense. Get some intellectual hygiene. Question things. Demand proof and exactitudes. THAT is the basis of real critical thought and scientific reasoning.
Sure, curiosity can lead to scientific advancements. Or it can lead to conspiracies. It depends on what it's being based on.
Advancements are made in the cognitive mortar between the bricks of knowledge we have. If those bricks aren't made of anything substantial, the mortar won't save it either. Gotta have a basis in something solid. That's why we take measurements and data.
I don't look to create unnecessary consternation but for an outcast community this place sure can be super hostile to 'against the grain' opinions. I don't want adulation but an explanation to go with the downvote parade would be nice sometimes.
Not even talking about political or ethical subjects, take OP above you as an example.
it's typical for online communities such as this, it's worse in some places, better in others, depends on the community and the instance. And how much of a pain in the ass you are.
No, he's just paying for the 14 year old's time, anything that happens after is between two adults an a adult and a child, who consent, share a racecar bed, are abusing extreme power dynamics!
Taking away consent. I don't care what the parents say, she isn't mentally developed enough to make an informed decision, nor understand the psychological impacts.
Edit: so prostitution, adding in rape. Any parent who agreed to this should not be responsible for a child
Thought experiment for anyone who thinks $10 million would make this acceptable. Which I hope is no one here in this thread, but bear with me while I argue with no one.
What if we asked this question again for $5 million? $1 million? $100,000? $10,000? $100? $1?
How would you ever begin to draw a line? Should the law say that there is a particular price tag at which this suddenly becomes legal?
Also, suppose, not so hypothetically, that we live in a world where poverty is itself a coercive factor. If the girl and her parents can't afford to say no, is this really consent?
I’m not touching the original question with a 10ft pole but…
“Where’s the Line?” Counterpoint: you’re parachuting out of the sky onto an island. There’s a sandy beach on your left and an ocean with 20 ft waves pounding on your right. The exact line between the ocean and the sand is undefinable. I can still easily choose the sandy side, because drowning sucks.
“Get banged by creepy old dude for $1” is definitely the water, “get banged by creepy old dude for $10million+” is definitely the beach.
“Not getting propositioned by creepy old guy” is “not riding in homemade airplanes” maybe? 🤷♂️
I once came around the hypothetical of like, for how much would you sell your foot. People talked about millions. I modified the question to selling a toe because I couldn't find anyone willing to even name a price for their foot. My friends were still like 5 mil, 10 mil, 100 mil when it was about a middle toe. Except my coworker, not having heard anyone answer the question, he was like "oof, hard question, I guess 50€".
People always say stuff like "I would not sell my toe for 5 million usd"
And then you rephrase the question into something like
"Would you sell your toe if you never had to work again, could pursue any hobby you wanted within reasonable limits, and could own a reasonable home for the rest of your life?"
And suddenly it seems infinitely more appealing
To me that someone wouldn't cut off their toe (assuming anesthesia and all that) for something like 1 million usd is ridiculous. We already sell so much of ourselves and our time for work and the pursuit of money for survival.
I don't know exactly what my limit would be, but for a toe it might have been closer to somewhere in the tens of thousands of dollars range.
Let's say I want to have sex with a 14 year-old girl, and pay her parents $10K. Blah blah blah the girl is not victimized blah blah she really benfits from this too blah blah really, I swear blah blah. The girl agrees, as do both of her parents. Should I do it? And does your opinion matter to me or are you female?
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
And does your opinion matter to me or are you female?
this is weird considering females are a considerably less respondent subsection, as well as tend to agree substantially more than males, which is certainly an odd statistical anomaly. You would think it would only be no in response, but this is also twitter, so maybe people were just shitposting?
yeah, that's why i'm saying that it's weird that they're different response groups. I can see why more men responded, but unless trolling it doesn't really explain the variations all that much, but then again it could just be bad sample sizing, stats data collection is hard.
Meanwhile, I’ll have sex with about anyone for $10m. I’m above the age of consent. Let’s go.
Fucking weirdos wanting child brides while criticizing Muslims and LGBTQ+ people. That video of the young girls getting attacked in Iran for how they dress is exactly what christofascists wish they could do here.
Well, first of all, I don’t think I’ve ever been asked a question in such a horrible manner, the first question. You don’t even say, ‘Hello. How are you?
No because 14 is not old enough to make an informed decision about that and involving the parents will increase the likelihood that they will pressure their kid into doing it for the money.
The thing that gets me is even when you up the age to 16, a common age of consent, you still have consent issues. 10 million dollars creates a consent issue for any poor person of any age. Are they truly making a choice? And I get that this is what sex workers already face.
But for fuck's sake our society seems far more willing to entertain this than just having a society where nobody needs sex work to not starve.
Once one is of a consenting age, sex work is just work
The better question to ask is if it's morally acceptable to force someone to work to not starve? And then there's the whole exploitation of the global south thing.
And at least personally, I'd much rather do sex work than be a coal miner
Sure, just like a promotion becomes a choice for a woman under a misogynist boss when he propositions her. Consent cannot exist in such a power imbalance. And it's not your fault or her fault. It's us, it's the system making that shitty situation real. We can and should change the system so that nobody faces such a choice.
It can't exist? As an exaggeration, is there no way for a woman to meaningfully consent to an offer from her male boss to swap packed lunches? After all, he might take offense and pass her over for the promotion if she declines.
And if consent is possible in that scenario, what makes it immediately impossible in the scenario where sex or romance is involved?
It seems obvious that consent has to exist on some kind of spectrum like almost everything else. But it's spoken about and thought about in a very binary way. That seems problematic given how big a topic consent is lately.
Funny you should bring up food. In the military leaders are trained to eat after their troops, to never gamble with them, and in general never ask anything from them that isn't related to doing the job.
Because consent cannot exist in a power imbalance. So yes the lunch swap has the exact same problem. Just with less trauma counseling.
Don't you think taking that hard-line stance kind of corners you into taking some nonsensical positions?
For example a physical power imbalance will always exist between two men of different sizes. Because the imbalance is there, you have to answer with a hard no when someone asks: "is it possible for two men of different sizes to consent to sex with one another?" But if someone asks "is it okay for two guys of different sizes to have sex?" you would presumably say yes.
Now you have been forced to say it is okay for sex to happen despite the impossibility of any consent having being given.
Those could also be 14 year olds that think "I want that money" and have no clue about what to expect. I've seen some with an "I don't really care what's happening to me" attitude. Maybe they flock to guys like him on twitter?
Or the other commenters are right and those are males. Depending on the numbers that might be more likely.
The way I read this, the guy has vanishingly few women who bother to follow and respond to him. I'm willing to bet at least half of the people who selected "Female, Yes/No" were dudes.
I wouldn't have. And if you look at child stars like Amamda Bynes, who essentially made that deal, it's not worth it. They are severely fucked up for life. What a weird, cavalier approach to the effects of sexual assault on children.
What was the age of the person you had sex with at 14?
Do you not understand the concept of trauma and how it relates to sexual assault? Ever read The Body Keeps the Score? Maybe you didn't make it unscathed. Maybe wanting to rape your 14 year old self for $10mil shows it did fuck you up.
I'd really recommend reading about PTSD and The Body Keeps the Score.
Sometimes you need someone to say, "hey, that's fucked up," to give yourself permission to say it too. Sometimes we need people in our lives to say that. Especially about an adult having sex with a 14 year old.
I get that's what you'd choose. I still think that's fucked up and you are ignorant to those effects, which are cognitively the same as torture. I don't think YOU are fucked up though, just that thought is fucked up. I'm sorry I said it like that.
Look at Amanda Bynes now. She doesn't have money anymore - she's going to school to be a nail salon lady. Do you genuinely think she's better off now than you are now? I think she's under conservatorship and forced to take psychiatric meds. I wouldn't trade lives with her.
Does he still have bones? His claws were bones at one point in the movies, if they were covered they'd be round/thick. So hypothetically what if wolverines bones were pudding. Would he be ditto or a bucket of water
Hypothetically, if a runaway tram were bearing down on five people tied to the tracks, but you could pull a lever and switch the tram to a track with only one person, would you pull the lever?
I see republicans are speeding up on the weird lane. No matter how you dress this question there is still the fact that a 65+ man paying millions to have sex with a 14 year old kid. Kinda gives you a peek into what kind of people are the richest and most politically influential.
I'm pretty sure it's from a bunch of conservative dudes answering that they're women to try to make conservative beliefs look popular with women. Like an "as a black man..." moment, except it's "as a woman..."
No... Women can be pedophiles too and you are operating on a biased belief system hoping that the data is incorrect cause you want it to be.
We don't have that, we have the results of the poll and people are fucked up in the head even when you want them not to be.
Edit: being down voted cause I'm not participating in the conversation or just because it doesn't match the set beliefs of the people who want it to be true?
It's an anonymous social media platform with a user base that's over 1/3rd women more than even the percentage combined up there.
If you think no women at all participated in that poll then you are picking a side that for some reason excuses an entire gender for what can only be considered bias reasons.
Yes I understand it's untrustworthy but we aren't saying this is some numbers in a spreadsheet poll, it was a poll on a site that even though we may disagree with it is swarming with a huge amount of real people sitting on their phone users.
So, the only way you could assume that literally no women voted in that poll because "theirs no way they would vote that way" is a cognitive bias from wanting that to be a truth when the more likely answer and the one that is shown to be reality in a world where people (men and women included) prostitute their children for a lot less than the hypothetical.
You are using an absence of a perfect source be excuse to throw away all of the results because you want to. That's on you, not me.
Considering that 95% of adults who marry children are men (according to the UN)... yeah nah man. Guys pretend to be women on the internet all the time. And conservatives on Twitter pretend to be groups which they aren't all the time. There is absolutely 0 chance a higher portion of women answered "yes" to this than men considering the facts of child marriage. It's not just about "pedophilia" but of patriarchal societies where women are treated more or less as sex objects, things which exist for men and who's sole purpose is to have babies.
In a matriarchal society, you would perhaps see more amount of women doing this. These trends aren't an inherent thing to being a man or a woman. But, due to thousands of years of patriarchal culture, girls are the primary victim of getting married off to adults, it's just simply far more common.
And the fact that historically marriage is initiated by men in basically all countries is unimportant now cause.....? And the 5% in your own statistics just... Doesn't exist?
You want there to be zero chance and refuse to accept any other reality. And yet women do enter into sex work willingly across the world. Women do plenty of things to set their life up like marrying men they don't love all the time. Your need for a better world than we live in is irrelevant.
I'm saying that women would absolutely take that offer. More than you think. And that you are making up a falsehood in your own head that it must be men to make you feel better about the world even though you have no basis for it other than conspiracy and hopeful wishful thinking.
The best science we have on the matter suggests that a larger portion of men are pedophiles (expressing interest in sexual relations with children), and statistically most offending pedophiles are men. This random poll on Twitter, a site infested with pedophiles and men with disgusting views on women and women's rights, where any random account can participate, is completely contradictory to the science on the matter. In my opinion, that's a pretty reasonable indication of the results being skewed by bad actors. There is no actual way to ensure the integrity of the results, as literally anyone can vote and anyone can make a new account to vote (and there are a lot of Twitter bots).
Now, I could see the argument that "women on Twitter are significantly less representative of women than men on Twitter are representative of men", but it's hard to see that effect causing this stark of a difference.
Would your answer change if she was actually 18? It still seems crazy manipulative. In some countries, the age of consent is 16. Would this be okay if she's 16 in one of those countries? (Let's ignore countries below that age)
I struggle between two ideas: One, where I believe that at the age of majority, a person should get full rights (voting, emancipation, legal, consent, medical, etc.) and it seems wrong to let people vote but not make choices about their body (like drinking alcohol). And two, protecting the young from themselves, like by restricting labor, or setting smoking and drinking ages higher than a majority age,, because those damage still-developing brains way more.
We can fight about what the age of majority should be (16, 17, 18, 21?). I would definitely be okay if this tweet was about a 30-year-old, but I'm not okay with it being a 10-year-old. But whether it's 16 or 18 or 22 where it crosses the line is tough for me.
I think these types of moral questions aren't actually that useful, because the actual problem at the heart of it (and at most things) is the difference in power.
Instead of asking "what age should temporary prostitution be legal," maybe we should ask "why have we concentrated so much excess power in the hands of this one guy who can drop a life changing payment for a one time service and still have plenty left over? Does it really make sense to try to come up with an arbitrary age that we've decided you're immune to coersion?
This entire moral quandary doesn't really exist in the (admittedly idealistic) world where power isn't so unequally distributed.
Just to point out, having a paraphilic disorder for pubescent teenagers is not pedophilia but hebephilia (i.e. having sexual interest in pubescent teenagers of either sex between 11 and 16)
as a graphic designer, i try to remind fellow graphic designers that apart from circumstances and conversations specifically related to your craft, colloquial use is totally acceptable and that you shouldn't be insisting on pointing out the difference between a font and a typeface, because no one cares and it's annoying as fuck.
not to mention everyone knows what people mean when they say "font" so there's no point in pedantic "ackshually"s. they just make you sound like a dick.
now that's what i think about designers being pedantic about designer terms.
when people talk about pedophiles they clearly mean people who act on it; no one cares what's in your heart or brain, that's between you and your psychiatrist. it's not even a legal term so it doesn't matter in "life or death" situations.
I know that there's a difference between a pedophile and a hebephile. I know that the differences is that pedos are attracted to prepubescent kids and hebes are attracted to pubescent kids. There is a difference between the two.
That being said, there's no way to say this online without sounding like someone who is attracted to kids.
Just to point out, colloquially you are wrong, and there is a colloquial use of the term pedophile. We are not discussing this in an academic setting and it also doesn't change the content of this discussion to redefine terms to academic ones, so no need to change it. Everyone understands what's being referenced here because it was specified as being a 14 year old in the OP.
What exactly is your purpose in making this distinction between these terms?
Can't even discuss serious mental disorders anymore without being dogpiled smh
People who are afflicted with these need help but people would rather just talk about how they deserve to be killed instead for something they never chose to have
I know I'm running full on into the blades of pedophilic panic here and I'm going to be accused of being a pedophile, but being attracted to pubescent teens is not a paraphilic disorder at all and perfectly normal.
I am all for protecting minors and 100% support laws that criminalizes adults having sexual contact with them, but I think we do a disservice to people's mental health to paint normal, healthy physical attractions as being deviant, and I don't think it does anything to protect minors.
I explicitly stated that it should be illegal to have sex with minors
being attracted to pubescent teens is not a paraphilic disorder at all and perfectly normal
Being attracted to 11 year olds, particularly when you're of Epstein Age, is decidedly not normal.
how irrational those gripped by pedophile panic have become
Guy on his second bottle of Jim Bean yelling about how he's being persecuted for doing a perfectly normal amount of drinking, even after he said he'd never actually endorse puking on your carpet.
Being attracted to 11 year olds, particularly when you’re of Epstein Age, is decidedly not normal.
Noone said 11 year olds. I said pubescent. Notice how, to make your point, you have to lie about what was said. It makes it appear that even you realize it's bs. Hell, especially considering you've swapped one lie out for another. How many different lies will you tell about what was said before you admit you might be wrong?
Guy on his second bottle of Jim Bean yelling about how he’s being persecuted for doing a perfectly normal amount of drinking, even after he said he’d never actually endorse puking on your carpet.
Just to point out, having a paraphilic disorder for pubescent teenagers is not pedophilia but hebephilia (i.e. having sexual interest in pubescent teenagers of either sex between 11 and 16)
It's not "normal" to be attracted to 14 year olds. It's not "normal" to be specifically attracted to any age group. It's honestly all a kink. Are you attracted to elderly people? No? That's because you have a different kink. And don't get into stupid biological bullshit of reproductive success etc, a woman in her 40s who's given birth before is in some cases much less likely to die in childbirth than a 14 year old who hasn't done it before, arguably. That some people have breeding kinks with their pedo kinks is on them. Like seriously stop being so sexually narcissistic, there are thousands of kinks that combines in thousands of ways. Why do you think your kink is the "normal" one? Like get over yourself.
Whether kinks are disorders or not is a separate topic. Where kinks come from - we don't know 100%. There's some evidence certain brain conditions can cause disorders and sexual dysfunction, so it's possible pedophilia could be induced. Personally I am curious if oxytocin plays a role in pedophilia. You can get oxytocin (note: this is not OXYCONTIN) compounded in a nasal spray from compounding pharmacies. Just need a doctor's prescription for it, it has been used experimentally for social anxiety. I think some pedophiles likely get extra oxytocin from children (and other groups get it from animals in some cases) which is part of what triggers their attraction even if they don't want to harm children.
If you are attracted to someone, that doesn't entitle you to fucking them. Even if you can convince them to say yes somehow.
Consent cannot be given if it's not safe to give dissent. Meaning a "yes" doesn't count if a "no" wouldn't count either. Most kids cannot readily say "no." They cannot consent.
It’s not “normal” to be specifically attracted to any age group.
I said nothing about age, but about development.
Why do you think your kink is the “normal” one?
I said nothing about my own personal attractions. If you're asking, I'm not a hebephile. I would be lying if I were to claim I've never found one physically attractive, but my general physical sexual attraction is probably about as vanilla as it gets. My actual kinks, not so much. But that's a completely different topic.
Just like I defend homosexuality as a normal, healthy attraction, I defend this. That doesn't make me gay, or a hebephile.
If you are attracted to someone, that doesn’t entitle you to fucking them.
And I pretty clearly said explicitly otherwise. Literally this whole thing about consent is just completely pulled out of your ass as it has nothing to do with anything I've said. Hell, you're whole rant is completely detached from the reality of anything I've said.
Yeah "development" what a creepy word and again, "development" has nothing to do with it. That's why I brought up the breeding kink part - the classic argument every libertarian creep who does the "It's hebephile not pedophile" dog whistle says this EXACT thing. Like you all are clearly watching the same porn. It's so weird of you. Idk how I have had this exact conversation with so many of my male peers. The other points I made are entirely relevant when it comes to fucking children. Many people think rape is a turn off, ya know?
"Development" is meaningless. It doesn't make it okay because the person looks a certain way. A "developed" body is not an "adult" body; many adult women have no breasts and no curves, and many young girls, some as young as 9!! get breasts. Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not "developed"?
That you associate "development" with sexual attraction is a YOU kink. It's not an EVERYONE kink. It's not the "natural" state for people. It's a kink. That you're justifying it with "well she looks fuckable and like she could have a baby to me" with no self awareness is... yikes.
Yeah “development” what a creepy word and again, “development” has nothing to do with it.
lol. It literally has everything to do with it. That's the whole point: when children enter into and finish puberty, they become capable of reproduction, so from an evolutionary perspective, that is a normal time to start finding them attractive. Just labelling it as "creepy" is an attempt to undermine the point because it's hard to actually address it.
Like you all are clearly watching the same porn.
I tell you I'm not into it, and what do you do? Lie, and claim I'm into it. I'll state it again, it never ceases to amaze me how far people will go to deny reality to hold onto their irrational beliefs.
Many people think rape is a turn off.
Agreed. Which is why, as I've already stated, it's 100% wrong to have sex with them.
Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not “developed”?
The fact that you need to ask this question just goes to show how absolutely ignorant you are of the topic, and probably shouldn't even be discussing it at all.
That you associate “development” with sexual attraction is a YOU kink.
Holy shit, this insane. lol This debate never ceases to crack me up. You're literally arguing that being attracted to people who have gone through puberty is a "kink." Even if you think that the stage of development that it's "appropriate" to become attracted to them is full adult, Tanner stage V, you still are arguing that development is important. But you are claiming this is nothing but a kink.
That you’re justifying it with “well she looks fuckable and like she could have a baby to me” with no self awareness is… yikes.
I have full self awareness of what I'm saying. It's the people who claim that development stages has nothing to do with it and is a "kink" are the ones who lack the self-awareness to understand how little they know of what they talk about... yikes.
Reproduction has nothing to do with sexual arousal in people, unless they have a reproduction kink. It is not "normal" to hinge your arousal on reproduction. Ancient humans likely had no idea sex acts lead to babies. Their arousal was hinged on other things, kinda like most animals. Do you think stallions know they will have a baby when they breed a mare? Probably not. Reproduction is again, a kink. Which I have informed you repeatedly. That it's been normalized by the groups you roll in, is a you thing.
You are narcissistic about your kinks. A lot of men are, because they often keep them secret until they go onto forums for that kink where they can all engage in it together and share porn and ideas. Then they think "I'm vanilla and normal," and project their kinks onto reality as if that's objective. It's not. You're wrong.
It's creepy because of what it implies about your general philosophy to kids.
You are into it. You are saying it's "normal" as long as they are developed. You've admitted finding young teens attractive before. This is about you. Stop being a coward.
Answer me: Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not “developed”?
who have gone through puberty is a “kink.”
You're moving goalposts. First, you say it's because they are developed- which describes a body type. Then you say it's because they can reproduce - which describes their eggs/womb and ability to carry a baby - which a "developed" 12 year old likely cannot do compared to a 35 year old who is flat chested and not curvy. And 'above puberty' includes people who cannot reproduce and are sometimes not "developed," such as elderly women. So which is it? Which do you mean? Or are you just making shit up because you think your kinks are "normal" and you've never analyzed or critically thought about them?
All sexual attractions are kinks. That's my point - there is no "normal" sexual arousal state. Calling it "normal" justifies a kink that harms others and allows for reactionary thinking. It's the same reason rapists rape and don't realize it - they think their rape kink is "normal." Look at Andrew Tate and his fans.
Being attracted to minors is not "normal" as an adult. It's just "normal" for you.
Sadly, this is so common around the world, I would say that if this poll was done for every person in the world we would have maybe even a tie.
I'm talking about child marriages (which are legal and common in some US states) they are basically this, except there is less money, some of it goes to the parents, some to the child (because shared assets)
In the States where child marriage is not legalized, it's treated as an informally arranged marriage. Basically, one guy promises his daughter to another guy in exchange for something and they wait until the girl is 18 or in some cases 17 or 16 before getting anything on paper.
Are you seriously trying to say that, because of this random online post on a predominantly male site (where most of the yes answers for "women" are likely men) that means that the predatory group isn't overwhelmingly men when it comes to child marriages? Or am I just cataclysmically misunderstanding your comment about the stated gender of the responses of post in response to someone simply talking about girls getting informally married off to men?
The UNFPA & UNICEF report that 95% of adults who marry children are men, while 5% are women. Between 85% and 95% of marriages between a child and an adult involve an adult male marrying a girl. The UN claims that in the US in particular, 86% of married children are girls, a significant majority of whom are married to adult men. According to the UNFPA, globally 25-30% of women get married before age 18, while 3-5% of men get married before age 18; and while most girls who get married are married to adult men, most boys who get married are married to girls (who are also children). Additionally, 10% of women get married before age 15, while 0.3% of men get married before age 15. This is likely because 1. a majority of cultures are highly patriarchal and young girls are often "sold off" as sex objects for (usually wealthy) men and 2. females are highly likely to be able to reproduce before 15, while males are more likely to not be able to reproduce until mid-adolescence, so girls are married much younger (again, nearly always adult men) in order to have children, while boys are usually married to girls around their age because they can have children anyways.
It's not like child marriage between boys and adult women doesn't happen, but let's not pretend that an overwhelming majority of adults marrying children aren't men marrying girls. The same goes for these unofficial marriages.
if this poll was done for every person in the world we would have maybe even a tie.
"Hello person in desperate poverty, I am your landlord and I am here to offer you a discount on the exorbitant rents I charge you for existing. All you need to do is this single morally abhorrent thing. After that, you're on easy street for the rest of your life."
I suspect the number of people who would take this deal is well over 50%, if for no other reason than being press ganged into doing morally repugnant things by an exploitative economic system is the norm and the enormous payout is the exception.
A better way to spin this is to rephrase the question: "Blah blah 14 year old blah blah everyone consents, in exchange for $120 half of which goes to your pimp." Then you get to the more grisly truth of what's being asked, and the popularity falls significantly.
Where I live, it's called arranged marriage, a form of forced marriage where parents choose who their child should live with. It's more common than many people would imagine, especially among women, girls and other non-male genders, and 93% of married Indians had an arranged marriage (data from a 2018 survey, source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-59530706)
Also keep in mind that the normative number of people voting as women is drastically lower thereby significantly manipulating the actual ratio. This is, even when everyone would actually answer truthfully, by no means a factual representation
Given the nature of the post and that its in Twitter, I would expect the number of people voting as a gender/sex they do not identify with to be higher then if it were conducted elsewhere
In poor third world countries you find old men paying the father to let them rape his virgin underage girl or force marry her. His justification is that they are poor and that man paid them "a lot". Only the lowest scummiest cunts of people would allow this upon their daughter and set her for life-long trauma of all types.
The fact is, the proposed agreement in this hypothetical is a private contract which, for the most part, is fine and acceptable under common law pretty much everywhere.
Uh. No. That's not correct. That's not even remotely correct.
You can't have a private contract for an act that is illegal. This isn't a contract for marriage. This is a contract for sex. Moreover, it's a contract for sex with a person that can not legally consent to sex.
This isn't completely true, children actually can be married at that age including to adults in some states. There's also no such thing as statutory rape between spouses in this circumstance. The kid's spouse also usually become their guardian, so they cannot get divorced without the adult spouse's permission in many places.
That's alright, I kinda used your comment to spread awareness about child marriage in the US. I want people to know so they can vote to ban it. Overwhelmingly most voters in the US do want to ban child marriage but they don't even realize it exists.
Hey, it's a good cause. I'm not mad about it. Child marriage is a disgrace and people should be made aware that it still exists and who it is that is fighting for it to continue.
The legality of paying for intimate acts varies wildly from country to country and even in the USA, from state to state.
I make no judgement about what is considered legal or not in any given area.
I'm mostly thinking about the common law of marrying off young persons. In many places the lower limit on how old you must be to marry, is shocking. Marrying a 14 year old isn't unheard of, even in developed countries. I just don't draw a significant distinction between being married at such a young age, and being paid for intercourse at the same age. Marriage at that age may be arguably more "legal" depending on the jurisdiction, but in my mind, you're not marrying a 14 year old for their hobbies, or personality. The only reason, again, that I can think of, where someone would propose to be married to someone so young, is if the person proposing the marriage is a similar age, or if they want to have sexual relations with someone who is that young.
So for me the line is blurred and I often conflate the point in my mind.
More to the point, statutory rape generally requires that the parents are opposed to the sexual acts. Otherwise, charges are generally not pressed against the offender. Again, this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To that end, if you have the written consent of the parents to engage in sexual acts with someone who is below the age where they can legally make such decisions, then it might be legal, again, depending on the jurisdiction.
This is entirely, and completely commentary from a neutral standpoint. Personally, I think anyone who would seek such an arrangement needs to see a therapist, or be locked up. Morally, I don't agree with it, but often, the law does not conform to my sense of morality.
I'm just saying, I understand that some places allow for these kinds of contracts to exist. I'm not saying I agree with it at all, because I don't. I can't imagine any situation where a father, or mother, would willingly subject their child to that situation, unless they were truly and utterly desperate.... But the matter of their desperation for money to survive, is an entirely different discussion.
The legality of paying for intimate acts varies wildly from country to country and even in the USA, from state to state.
It is 100% illegal in ever single state in the US to pay for sex with someone that is below not only the age of majority, but also the age of consent. The minimum age of consent in the US is 14.
More to the point, statutory rape generally requires that the parents are opposed to the sexual acts.
1000% false, in every single case. It may be more difficult to prosecute without parental involvement, but it is not required. Statutory rape is a strict liability crime; no mens rea is required. And bluntly, any prosecutor that failed to deal with an underage prostitution case would lose their job in the next election; "soft on child sex crimes" isn't a winning platform.
By expressing an understanding of the legalities of it, and speaking from a neutral viewpoint, plus some deficiency in reading comprehension (you clearly didn't read the whole post), you seem to have assumed that my statements meant I agreed with any of the laws I was discussing.
I don't.
Let me put it simply (and I said this in my previous post, more or less): no adult person should be seeking this kind of "deal" or "relationship" with someone who is under the age of consent.
I recognise that with parental permission you can attain concent to (at the very least) marry an underage person. I don't agree that people this young should be allowed to be married or perform sexual acts even with the consent of the parents. The law disagrees.
I don't like it, and I don't have to.
My post was largely a commentary on how fucked up the legal system is for allowing this.
The fact is, the proposed agreement in this hypothetical is a private contract which, for the most part, is fine and acceptable under common law pretty much everywhere.
"Pretty much everywhere"?
Dude do you even know what "common law" means? There's basically one in Europe, the UK.
Secondly, you can't make contracts to void laws/avoid regulations set by laws. You can't make a private contract that someone agrees to work for you for less than the federal mandated minimum wage.
You can't make a contract saying you're selling someone to be a slave, as slavery is illegal in the US (unless you're put in prison, US industry strongly relies on prison slave labour).
You can't make a contract saying you allow someone to murder you. That person would still be trialed as a murderer.
IMO, legally, I don't care. If someone wants to put themselves into this situation, then fine. It doesn't really affect me.
I think it does, however indirectly. When the rich start getting more relaxed about buying people and treating them more as product than people.... it will affect us all.
You could get people to do absolutely inhumane shit if you took 10 million to a very poor country and just started egging people on. People would literally kill for just hundreds of dollars. With 10 million you could make some sort of mad max murderdome type of setup. Just have "private contracts" with everyone, and it's okay, right? No need to consider the morality in the slightest.
Yes, the UK uses common law. Also, so do many current or former "Commonwealth", including, but not limited to, the USA.
Common law is why overturning Roe v. Wade made abortion bans possible. Roe v. Wade was the common law precedent that allowed for women to have the right to an abortion.
And no, contacts cannot overrule the law, whether from a law passed by the governing body, or by common law. This is why i essentially said, if you don't like it/agree with it, change the laws.
Make it illegal. Change the law to make it illegal.
Then, regardless of the contract, it is a crime.
As for the rich and any affect this might have on me.... The rich do this shit, not to dehumanize us "Poor's", but because they've already dehumanized us. I don't think this is a cause, this is an effect.
But I'll give you an upvote for sharing your opinion. I'll fight anyone who tries to take your opinion away from you.
Oh you went from "pretty much everywhere" to "well, uh, many commonwealth countries".
You sure you didn't have to go check what it meant, and then you were shocked at how many of what we'd consider "developed countries" actually do not use common law?
In the EU, only Ireland still has common law.
All others use civil law. And I'm sure you didn't know that. :)
IMO, legally, I don't care. If someone wants to put themselves into this situation, then fine. It doesn't really affect me.
Why... would it affect you. What on earth are you talking about?
You know, one guy murdering another guy over a pack of raisins doesn't affect you, but I have no earthly idea why this should stop you from caring it happened.
Freedom has limits that most don't really talk about. To me, the limits of freedom exist where your freedom and the freedom of others intersect. If your freedom is impacting the ability for someone else to enjoy their freedoms, then it needs to be a matter settled by law.
Murdering someone kinda removes that person's ability to exercise their freedoms.
Both individuals engaged in that act should be free to consent to the act, and revoke that consent at any time.
I'll reiterate, this assumes informed consent, not implied or assumed consent. Again, reiterating: children that have no understanding of sexual acts, or what they entail, cannot provide informed consent because they do not understand what they are consenting to, or what the ramifications are of that consent.
Both individuals engaged in that act should be free to consent to the act, and revoke that consent at any time.
A 14 year old.
Again, reiterating: children that have no understanding of sexual acts, or what they entail, [...]
I like how you keep putting up these disclaimers like they're supposed to absolve you of being a weirdo, but you keep building in these little exceptions for "very mature" children.
Mystik, how much the child knows about sex does not matter. That's not why it's illegal.
Yeah, children cannot consent to sex with adults so even if he could argue that poverty under capitalism is worse than rape then society has completely failed those children. Wealth disparity under capitalism has grown too large and I fear that capitalism is both destroying the planet and society.
The problem is the power in balance. A teen or child cannot consent to sex with an adult because they are not on the same cognitive level and the adult could easily be preying on and manipulating the child.
The power imbalance exists whether they're having sex or not. That power imbalance is constantly exploited for anything and everything that isn't sex and isn't getting anyone paid.
Wait, how come she's old enough to make the decision to have sex, but she's not old enough to have access to her money?
Because a) statute of limitations and b) lawyers cost money. No, I think you are right, the simpler explanation makes more sense.
To be fair most women i know had sex at 14 or younger. None got 10 million for it.
Having sex with your peers is are appropriate teenage behavior. Being preyed upon by pedophiles isn't. Being taught about selling your body also isn't. I'm not sure where you're having problems "being fair" here.
14 year olds are children, not adults, and whether they are attracted to adults isn’t the concern. The fact that you think the problem here is that society won’t allow children to act on their attraction to adults - and not that children should not fuck adults - is a massive self-report.
You have a typo in your username.
Oh, that's beautiful. Thank you.
I think the assumptions you made is that 1, they were peers and 2, that they regret it in hindsight. Im still in the male/no category, but even with their much older and more mature brains they still think that was a consensual interaction.
Im just thinking the wider possibilities and Ideas because, let's be honest, we're not discussing either a possibility or policy change - its just not going to happen.
One was happily fucking her way through men double and triple her age within the first 6 months and had the only regret of an STD - why should she not have been able to take 10 mill for something she was going to do anyway?Does being paid suddenly make it not OK?
FBI, this guy right here
Children should not have sex with adults
The fact that you're trying to paint being anti-statutory rape as misogynistic and heavily imply "the left believes boys who are raped by adults aren't victims/that adult women having sex with kids isn't rape" is... yikes. No, children (regardless of sex or gender of anyone involved) cannot consent to sex with adults and yes, children who are groomed will naturally be more likely to see their grooming as normal since it was literally intertwined with the critical period of mental development in their lives. You can make literally anything seem "normal" or "okay" to a lot of people if you can convince them it's okay when they're young. Your pedophilia & rape apologia is disgusting, Jesus Christ. You're actually arguing that abuse victims/nonconsenting people having sex aren't victims because they can't accept that they were manipulated. That doesn't even only affect children, but abused people in general. This isn't even strictly a left-right thing, people from fucking every part of the political spectrum are wondering wtf is wrong with you after this. Ain't none of the right-wingers I know advocating for the Epsteins and the Dr. Disrespects of the world, even though I'm from the god damn rural south where children marrying adults is legal and middle-school aged kids can legally bang a typical high school graduate.
I also want to add, for anyone struggling with understanding this or how sexual abuse can harm minors, please read The Body Keeps the Score. Sexual abuse has the same effects on kids as active war combat and torture. Imo it could easily be considered torture. There are automatic things your brain does that keep you alive in these situations and protect you mentally later. But it comes at a cost and your body leaves clues. No one is unaffected by sexual abuse, and all sexual interactions between minors and adults are sexual abuse.
☝️ The weird guy in question
I wonder how many women he knows.
This guy also has a whole post on Substack complaining that the left is too wary of age gaps in relationships and that this is an "attack on heterosexuality" or whatever. It's kind of funny how these "anti woke" types will decry that queer people are all groomers and yet proclaim that age gaps and adults dating teenagers is part of heterosexual culture under the same breath.
Because the only thing that's keeping them from the most depraved things humans can do is the laws. They grew up wrong. The rest of us are asking to live our authentic lives and they can't think of anything that would stop us, upon living our authentic lives, from committing depraved acts because that's what they would do if the laws allowed it. We ask to be allowed to have healthy relationships between consenting adults and they see a dangerous precedent that once we're allowed to do that, then what else are we allowed to do. Its from a basic difference in where they think ethics and morality come from. I think ethics and morality come from within ourselves and that laws should be written to establish communal protections that allow people to achieve true freedom from oppression. They believe ethics and morality exist separate from humanity and laws exist to ensure intrinsically bad people (everyone) remains moral. Within that group, the repressives we're talking about in this post are truly the most dangerous.
Look. All this is super complicated and I'm realizing I'm over simplifying entire systems of ethics it took me 35 pages single spaced to describe in college. Its valuable to have discussions about where ethics come from when discussing politics because ultimately that's what you actually vote on and about
Edit: replied to the wrong comment. I absolutely agree with you
Very well put, thank you
There is a loooooooooooooong fucked up history of this being sanctioned by organized religions of all types. It stems from the patriarchal ideal woman being a baby factory and is absolutely a barbaric practice. The men in these religions are conditioned to be interested in young virginal girls that they call women but treat like property.
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-reveal-patterns-sexual-abuse-religious.html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X20301421
https://www.gotquestions.org/child-marriage.html
https://www.salon.com/2018/03/11/banning-child-marriage-in-america-an-uphill-fight-against-evangelical-pressure/
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/child-marriage-and-religion-in-the-united-states
That was some wild and deranged shit holy fuck. And the comments too.
"Hey should the rich and wealthy be able to rape children as long as they pay them afterwards?"
What a weird fucking question to ask.
I think it must be fairly normal to wonder things like this. Once I saw a video of a man standing on a busy sidewalk offering passersby the opportunity to shoot a staple gun into his bare chest for a dollar or so. It was immediately fascinating. The proposition was so direct: pay money to inflict pain. And people were taking him up on it!
Interesting, sort of in the same way that this Twitter guy's question is interesting. The same way other moral thought experiments like "the trolley problem" are interesting.
No. What? "Is it moral if I rape a girl for money" is not peak philosophy. It's not even a new idea. Holy fuck. You give philosophy a bad name.
What do you think about the parallel I was trying to draw between the video I mentioned and this guy's question about paying for rape? I thought the reason that someone's interest could be caught by the video is similar in nature to the reasons someone might wonder "is it okay to pay to hurt someone"? And that train of thought leads naturally enough to "Well how much harm is permissible for what amount of money?" which leads naturally enough to imagining specific circumstances.
And those trains of thought are similar to the thought behind people's ancient musings about other tricky question of morality like the trolley problem. It's not peak philosophy it's just ordinary human thought. You shouldn't be so afraid or repulsed by it or whatever.
The question reads like a sexual fantasy, to be clear. It doesn't read like a normal innocent question. It reads like he thinks a LOT about how he can rape kids and get away with it socially, hence the poll. It does not read innocently. It is entirely too specific.
You're probably right about this specific dude's motivations for posing the question, but I think I am right that this type of thought is entirely normal and even common to have. You are right about the dismissiveness too, sorry.
Just chiming in to say I think you're right in that these types of thought experiments pop into people's heads pretty regularly, albeit with way less "trying to justify a creepy sex fantasy" intent like the public poll post seems to have.
Though I have to question why it was public in the first place. I don't know who the poster is or if it's their real name, but what if it's less "projection" and more "morbid curiosity" in seeing just how many people would answer yes to this heinous question? There is some merit in gauging reactions to this from a social psychology point of view (even if this is an non-scientific example).
Follow-up thought. Without morbid thought experiments, how do people create horror stories and gritty crime dramas like L&O:SVU when a story has no particular real life basis? I'm not sure it's wholly possible in a fictional novel or show. There's a reason people eat crime dramas up; it's fascinating and horrifying to see how far a real and fictionalized human will go in various circumstances.
In a way, it's a manifestation of the "call of the void" situation, where an intrusive thought (what if I jump off this bridge right now? what happens if I yank the steering wheel driving 50mph? spook a herd of grazing horses? slap grandpa upside the head? while out hunting??) so I think its purpose is more to keep you aware of harzards in whatever the situation may be. Avoidance through sudden acknowledgement of the risk.
Again, I don't recognize this person or know any background, but maybe they posed the question as a wacky means of self-preservation on a broader level? As if the poller thought, "How many of my viewers would prostitute out their child if given the most forgiving, financially advantageous, and seemingly consensual circumstances?" to figure out how worried they should be about a certain percentage of their friends, neighbors, and/or followers. Avoidance through asking weird questions publicly.
Edit: Holy ship I managed to write a whole novel on my thought experiment about thought experiments ahh^ahh.^
The train of thought that youtube story leads me to is not 'how much harm is permissible' but 'why are humans such vile creatures?'. Does everbody just love the thought of hurting others? Is this normal? Why the fuck would anyone want to staple some guys chest?
Lol no. If this was something I thought was said in "good faith," then it would be fine to discuss. However, I don't think it was said in good faith and I think the person was being intentionally disgusting. It's not ordinary human thought. But thanks for being so dismissive.
Like you weren't?
Where? Disagreement isn't dismissiveness.
i think there is something to be said about the value of money, there is ALWAYS an amount of money people are willing to be paid to do something.
wait until you figured out how we discovered science
or better yet, if you're more of a normie, who figured out you can drink cow milk first.
"How we discovered science" this is such a stupid statement. Nonsensical.
It was a woman. Who figured out we could drink other animal milks first, by watching a calf drink it. She probably needed it for a human baby. A lot of stuff that doesn't make sense to men makes sense to women.
And it is a weird and boring question in the OP. He wants to rape a girl for money. Gee, that's never been asked before. What a deep philospher.
that seems plausible. I would imagine this happened on pretty early in human history, but it would have to be late enough that we had somewhat domesticated animals.
it's certainly weird, but so are a lot of questions, and it's boring, but then again, when are questions ever exciting lol.
As for philosophy, the single most intriguing question that has ever been asked is quite literally "what is the meaning of life"
You got way too hung on their example. The point was science is tinkering and following weird curiosities but with extra steps. Virtually every major innovation in the last century (for most of civilisation I would argue) has been a result of indirect tinkering, or benefitted from a completely unrelated field.
You were in such a rush to defend their point, you missed mine. Which is that pseudoscience and pseudointellectualism look exactly like this - made up bullshit based in nothing. I'm not "too hung up" on their examples - that's exactly how I'm showing their nonsense. Get some intellectual hygiene. Question things. Demand proof and exactitudes. THAT is the basis of real critical thought and scientific reasoning.
Sure, curiosity can lead to scientific advancements. Or it can lead to conspiracies. It depends on what it's being based on.
Advancements are made in the cognitive mortar between the bricks of knowledge we have. If those bricks aren't made of anything substantial, the mortar won't save it either. Gotta have a basis in something solid. That's why we take measurements and data.
Haha Lemmy hates to hear this, good luck.
yeah, i do a bit of lolcowing on lemmy from time to time, same as i did on reddit.
It's fun. Would recommend people stop caring about the shit they read/write on the internet, its mostly bullshit anyway.
I don't look to create unnecessary consternation but for an outcast community this place sure can be super hostile to 'against the grain' opinions. I don't want adulation but an explanation to go with the downvote parade would be nice sometimes.
Not even talking about political or ethical subjects, take OP above you as an example.
it's typical for online communities such as this, it's worse in some places, better in others, depends on the community and the instance. And how much of a pain in the ass you are.
'Should enormously overpriced child sex trafficking be allowed?'
For fucks sake
Fucking greedflation affecting the child sex trafficking industry too now
This is just prostitution with extra steps.
No, he's just paying for the 14 year old's time, anything that happens after is between
two adultsan a adult and a child, whoconsent,share a racecar bed, are abusing extreme power dynamics!Money is irrelevant. Its child sexual abuse by a pedophile and idealised by other pedophiles.
What extra steps ?
Taking away consent. I don't care what the parents say, she isn't mentally developed enough to make an informed decision, nor understand the psychological impacts.
Edit: so prostitution, adding in rape. Any parent who agreed to this should not be responsible for a child
Thought experiment for anyone who thinks $10 million would make this acceptable. Which I hope is no one here in this thread, but bear with me while I argue with no one.
What if we asked this question again for $5 million? $1 million? $100,000? $10,000? $100? $1?
How would you ever begin to draw a line? Should the law say that there is a particular price tag at which this suddenly becomes legal?
Also, suppose, not so hypothetically, that we live in a world where poverty is itself a coercive factor. If the girl and her parents can't afford to say no, is this really consent?
I’m not touching the original question with a 10ft pole but…
“Where’s the Line?” Counterpoint: you’re parachuting out of the sky onto an island. There’s a sandy beach on your left and an ocean with 20 ft waves pounding on your right. The exact line between the ocean and the sand is undefinable. I can still easily choose the sandy side, because drowning sucks.
“Get banged by creepy old dude for $1” is definitely the water, “get banged by creepy old dude for $10million+” is definitely the beach.
“Not getting propositioned by creepy old guy” is “not riding in homemade airplanes” maybe? 🤷♂️
I once came around the hypothetical of like, for how much would you sell your foot. People talked about millions. I modified the question to selling a toe because I couldn't find anyone willing to even name a price for their foot. My friends were still like 5 mil, 10 mil, 100 mil when it was about a middle toe. Except my coworker, not having heard anyone answer the question, he was like "oof, hard question, I guess 50€".
You want a toe? I can get you a toe, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don't wanna know about it, believe me.
People always say stuff like "I would not sell my toe for 5 million usd"
And then you rephrase the question into something like
"Would you sell your toe if you never had to work again, could pursue any hobby you wanted within reasonable limits, and could own a reasonable home for the rest of your life?"
And suddenly it seems infinitely more appealing
To me that someone wouldn't cut off their toe (assuming anesthesia and all that) for something like 1 million usd is ridiculous. We already sell so much of ourselves and our time for work and the pursuit of money for survival.
I don't know exactly what my limit would be, but for a toe it might have been closer to somewhere in the tens of thousands of dollars range.
How this post really reads:
Let's say I want to have sex with a 14 year-old girl, and pay her parents $10K. Blah blah blah the girl is not victimized blah blah she really benfits from this too blah blah really, I swear blah blah. The girl agrees, as do both of her parents. Should I do it? And does your opinion matter to me or are you female?
The guy who asked this is basically asking if it's okay for parents to prostitute out their child.
And sadly that is quite common
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds? Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?! Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
this is weird considering females are a considerably less respondent subsection, as well as tend to agree substantially more than males, which is certainly an odd statistical anomaly. You would think it would only be no in response, but this is also twitter, so maybe people were just shitposting?
Try reading "Delusions of Gender" by Cordelia Fine.
yeah, that's why i'm saying that it's weird that they're different response groups. I can see why more men responded, but unless trolling it doesn't really explain the variations all that much, but then again it could just be bad sample sizing, stats data collection is hard.
Meanwhile, I’ll have sex with about anyone for $10m. I’m above the age of consent. Let’s go.
Fucking weirdos wanting child brides while criticizing Muslims and LGBTQ+ people. That video of the young girls getting attacked in Iran for how they dress is exactly what christofascists wish they could do here.
Well, first of all, I don’t think I’ve ever been asked a question in such a horrible manner, the first question. You don’t even say, ‘Hello. How are you?
No because 14 is not old enough to make an informed decision about that and involving the parents will increase the likelihood that they will pressure their kid into doing it for the money.
The thing that gets me is even when you up the age to 16, a common age of consent, you still have consent issues. 10 million dollars creates a consent issue for any poor person of any age. Are they truly making a choice? And I get that this is what sex workers already face.
But for fuck's sake our society seems far more willing to entertain this than just having a society where nobody needs sex work to not starve.
Once one is of a consenting age, sex work is just work
The better question to ask is if it's morally acceptable to force someone to work to not starve? And then there's the whole exploitation of the global south thing.
And at least personally, I'd much rather do sex work than be a coal miner
Dude I’m poor and I’ll appreciate that $10M choice any day.
With $10M on the table, my poverty is now a choice.
Sure, just like a promotion becomes a choice for a woman under a misogynist boss when he propositions her. Consent cannot exist in such a power imbalance. And it's not your fault or her fault. It's us, it's the system making that shitty situation real. We can and should change the system so that nobody faces such a choice.
It can't exist? As an exaggeration, is there no way for a woman to meaningfully consent to an offer from her male boss to swap packed lunches? After all, he might take offense and pass her over for the promotion if she declines.
And if consent is possible in that scenario, what makes it immediately impossible in the scenario where sex or romance is involved?
It seems obvious that consent has to exist on some kind of spectrum like almost everything else. But it's spoken about and thought about in a very binary way. That seems problematic given how big a topic consent is lately.
Funny you should bring up food. In the military leaders are trained to eat after their troops, to never gamble with them, and in general never ask anything from them that isn't related to doing the job.
Because consent cannot exist in a power imbalance. So yes the lunch swap has the exact same problem. Just with less trauma counseling.
Don't you think taking that hard-line stance kind of corners you into taking some nonsensical positions?
For example a physical power imbalance will always exist between two men of different sizes. Because the imbalance is there, you have to answer with a hard no when someone asks: "is it possible for two men of different sizes to consent to sex with one another?" But if someone asks "is it okay for two guys of different sizes to have sex?" you would presumably say yes.
Now you have been forced to say it is okay for sex to happen despite the impossibility of any consent having being given.
Obviously the line gets drawn somewhere yes. Why 18 and not 19? Etc... I just had a good laugh because you stepped right in one.
You’re essentially saying that I’m incapable of economic consent, and I disagree because that dehumanizes me.
I'd say the system already did that.
The female ratio between yes and no is concerning
Looks like a twitter poll. I wouldn't be super surprised if some of those 'yes' answers are from an "as a totally real fe-male person" folks.
don't forget pick-mes. it's twitter; the pick-me ratio is probably 12x as high as it is outside.
Don't be so willing to assume men didn't click "yes, woman".
Don't be so willing to assume there were no women that clicked that too.
There's one born every minute as they say. Still, good faith polling on Twitter? No bet.
Those could also be 14 year olds that think "I want that money" and have no clue about what to expect. I've seen some with an "I don't really care what's happening to me" attitude. Maybe they flock to guys like him on twitter?
Or the other commenters are right and those are males. Depending on the numbers that might be more likely.
The way I read this, the guy has vanishingly few women who bother to follow and respond to him. I'm willing to bet at least half of the people who selected "Female, Yes/No" were dudes.
I’m wondering how many of those responders might be teenage women thinking about the lure of having ten million dollars with an older hottie.
I wouldn't have. And if you look at child stars like Amamda Bynes, who essentially made that deal, it's not worth it. They are severely fucked up for life. What a weird, cavalier approach to the effects of sexual assault on children.
What was the age of the person you had sex with at 14?
Do you not understand the concept of trauma and how it relates to sexual assault? Ever read The Body Keeps the Score? Maybe you didn't make it unscathed. Maybe wanting to rape your 14 year old self for $10mil shows it did fuck you up.
I'd really recommend reading about PTSD and The Body Keeps the Score.
Sometimes you need someone to say, "hey, that's fucked up," to give yourself permission to say it too. Sometimes we need people in our lives to say that. Especially about an adult having sex with a 14 year old.
I get that's what you'd choose. I still think that's fucked up and you are ignorant to those effects, which are cognitively the same as torture. I don't think YOU are fucked up though, just that thought is fucked up. I'm sorry I said it like that.
Look at Amanda Bynes now. She doesn't have money anymore - she's going to school to be a nail salon lady. Do you genuinely think she's better off now than you are now? I think she's under conservatorship and forced to take psychiatric meds. I wouldn't trade lives with her.
Ah yes, cause the thing that makes pedophilia bad is the immediate payment, if you defer that until the victim is off age it's all good.
It's hebephilia not pedophilia, though the immorality doesn't change
Hey there's a word for that! It's called "Child prostitution"!
Doesn't sound quite as reasonable, does it? Not that it ever did.
why are people obsessed with coming up with scenarios in which it could be okay to have sex with children
Be... because they want to have sex with children?
I stopped asking "let's say" and "hypotheticaly" questions. I'm so fucking done with that bullshit.
I only ask them in regards to fiction. Like, "what if wolverine had his bones covered in pudding instead of adamantium?"
he would be very tasty
Does he still have bones? His claws were bones at one point in the movies, if they were covered they'd be round/thick. So hypothetically what if wolverines bones were pudding. Would he be ditto or a bucket of water
Hypothetically, if a runaway tram were bearing down on five people tied to the tracks, but you could pull a lever and switch the tram to a track with only one person, would you pull the lever?
That's...not good
I see republicans are speeding up on the weird lane. No matter how you dress this question there is still the fact that a 65+ man paying millions to have sex with a 14 year old kid. Kinda gives you a peek into what kind of people are the richest and most politically influential.
The gap between yes/no men and yes/no women is kinda crazy. Also, probably has a lot to do with the audience this post reached.
I'm pretty sure it's from a bunch of conservative dudes answering that they're women to try to make conservative beliefs look popular with women. Like an "as a black man..." moment, except it's "as a woman..."
No... Women can be pedophiles too and you are operating on a biased belief system hoping that the data is incorrect cause you want it to be.
We don't have that, we have the results of the poll and people are fucked up in the head even when you want them not to be.
Edit: being down voted cause I'm not participating in the conversation or just because it doesn't match the set beliefs of the people who want it to be true?
It's an anonymous social media platform with a user base that's over 1/3rd women more than even the percentage combined up there.
If you think no women at all participated in that poll then you are picking a side that for some reason excuses an entire gender for what can only be considered bias reasons.
Yes I understand it's untrustworthy but we aren't saying this is some numbers in a spreadsheet poll, it was a poll on a site that even though we may disagree with it is swarming with a huge amount of real people sitting on their phone users.
So, the only way you could assume that literally no women voted in that poll because "theirs no way they would vote that way" is a cognitive bias from wanting that to be a truth when the more likely answer and the one that is shown to be reality in a world where people (men and women included) prostitute their children for a lot less than the hypothetical.
You are using an absence of a perfect source be excuse to throw away all of the results because you want to. That's on you, not me.
Considering that 95% of adults who marry children are men (according to the UN)... yeah nah man. Guys pretend to be women on the internet all the time. And conservatives on Twitter pretend to be groups which they aren't all the time. There is absolutely 0 chance a higher portion of women answered "yes" to this than men considering the facts of child marriage. It's not just about "pedophilia" but of patriarchal societies where women are treated more or less as sex objects, things which exist for men and who's sole purpose is to have babies.
In a matriarchal society, you would perhaps see more amount of women doing this. These trends aren't an inherent thing to being a man or a woman. But, due to thousands of years of patriarchal culture, girls are the primary victim of getting married off to adults, it's just simply far more common.
And the fact that historically marriage is initiated by men in basically all countries is unimportant now cause.....? And the 5% in your own statistics just... Doesn't exist?
You want there to be zero chance and refuse to accept any other reality. And yet women do enter into sex work willingly across the world. Women do plenty of things to set their life up like marrying men they don't love all the time. Your need for a better world than we live in is irrelevant.
Man what are you even talking about right now..? What exactly are you arguing against here? I don't think we're on the same page.
I'm saying that women would absolutely take that offer. More than you think. And that you are making up a falsehood in your own head that it must be men to make you feel better about the world even though you have no basis for it other than conspiracy and hopeful wishful thinking.
The best science we have on the matter suggests that a larger portion of men are pedophiles (expressing interest in sexual relations with children), and statistically most offending pedophiles are men. This random poll on Twitter, a site infested with pedophiles and men with disgusting views on women and women's rights, where any random account can participate, is completely contradictory to the science on the matter. In my opinion, that's a pretty reasonable indication of the results being skewed by bad actors. There is no actual way to ensure the integrity of the results, as literally anyone can vote and anyone can make a new account to vote (and there are a lot of Twitter bots).
Now, I could see the argument that "women on Twitter are significantly less representative of women than men on Twitter are representative of men", but it's hard to see that effect causing this stark of a difference.
I love this meme format
Would your answer change if she was actually 18? It still seems crazy manipulative. In some countries, the age of consent is 16. Would this be okay if she's 16 in one of those countries? (Let's ignore countries below that age)
I struggle between two ideas: One, where I believe that at the age of majority, a person should get full rights (voting, emancipation, legal, consent, medical, etc.) and it seems wrong to let people vote but not make choices about their body (like drinking alcohol). And two, protecting the young from themselves, like by restricting labor, or setting smoking and drinking ages higher than a majority age,, because those damage still-developing brains way more.
We can fight about what the age of majority should be (16, 17, 18, 21?). I would definitely be okay if this tweet was about a 30-year-old, but I'm not okay with it being a 10-year-old. But whether it's 16 or 18 or 22 where it crosses the line is tough for me.
I think these types of moral questions aren't actually that useful, because the actual problem at the heart of it (and at most things) is the difference in power.
Instead of asking "what age should temporary prostitution be legal," maybe we should ask "why have we concentrated so much excess power in the hands of this one guy who can drop a life changing payment for a one time service and still have plenty left over? Does it really make sense to try to come up with an arbitrary age that we've decided you're immune to coersion?
This entire moral quandary doesn't really exist in the (admittedly idealistic) world where power isn't so unequally distributed.
Regardless, the moral fact is that any man (or parent) willing to participate in this exchange of services should immediately become an organ donor.
For ten million I would let bezos fondle the beans for 30 seconds. Best I can do.
Ill do 45 seconds for 11 million, while telling him he's a great businessman and a strong leader.
They pay for the fantasy after all.
Ok 15 million and .05% of Amazon, one full minute, I'll tell him he's the straightest eyed cowboy this side of the mighty mississip.
Nothing gets the pedophiles riled up quite like a hypothetical
Just to point out, having a paraphilic disorder for pubescent teenagers is not pedophilia but hebephilia (i.e. having sexual interest in pubescent teenagers of either sex between 11 and 16)
as a graphic designer, i try to remind fellow graphic designers that apart from circumstances and conversations specifically related to your craft, colloquial use is totally acceptable and that you shouldn't be insisting on pointing out the difference between a font and a typeface, because no one cares and it's annoying as fuck.
not to mention everyone knows what people mean when they say "font" so there's no point in pedantic "ackshually"s. they just make you sound like a dick.
now that's what i think about designers being pedantic about designer terms.
idk what i can even say about your comment.
Precisely.
As a graphic designer you don’t deal in life or death situations.
when people talk about pedophiles they clearly mean people who act on it; no one cares what's in your heart or brain, that's between you and your psychiatrist. it's not even a legal term so it doesn't matter in "life or death" situations.
I know that there's a difference between a pedophile and a hebephile. I know that the differences is that pedos are attracted to prepubescent kids and hebes are attracted to pubescent kids. There is a difference between the two.
That being said, there's no way to say this online without sounding like someone who is attracted to kids.
I don’t care
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nu6C2KL_S9o
Just to point out, colloquially you are wrong, and there is a colloquial use of the term pedophile. We are not discussing this in an academic setting and it also doesn't change the content of this discussion to redefine terms to academic ones, so no need to change it. Everyone understands what's being referenced here because it was specified as being a 14 year old in the OP.
What exactly is your purpose in making this distinction between these terms?
Can't even discuss serious mental disorders anymore without being dogpiled smh
People who are afflicted with these need help but people would rather just talk about how they deserve to be killed instead for something they never chose to have
Everyone loves to talk about how they would hurt others if they could and how their version is the only one that is just and fair.
I know I'm running full on into the blades of pedophilic panic here and I'm going to be accused of being a pedophile, but being attracted to pubescent teens is not a paraphilic disorder at all and perfectly normal.
I am all for protecting minors and 100% support laws that criminalizes adults having sexual contact with them, but I think we do a disservice to people's mental health to paint normal, healthy physical attractions as being deviant, and I don't think it does anything to protect minors.
Proudly declaring yourself a guy who draws the line at fucking 10 year olds.
I explicitly stated that it should be illegal to have sex with minors, yet you still accuse me of saying it's okay to have sex with minors.
Thanks for demonstrating, so succinctly and clearly, how irrational those gripped by pedophile panic have become.
Being attracted to 11 year olds, particularly when you're of Epstein Age, is decidedly not normal.
Guy on his second bottle of Jim Bean yelling about how he's being persecuted for doing a perfectly normal amount of drinking, even after he said he'd never actually endorse puking on your carpet.
Noone said 11 year olds. I said pubescent. Notice how, to make your point, you have to lie about what was said. It makes it appear that even you realize it's bs. Hell, especially considering you've swapped one lie out for another. How many different lies will you tell about what was said before you admit you might be wrong?
This literally makes no sense. Noone is talking about puking or overdrinking. We're talking about normal, healthy physical attraction. I've explicitly excluded action from my claim if what is acceptable.
Sure sounds like you said 11 to me!
It's not "normal" to be attracted to 14 year olds. It's not "normal" to be specifically attracted to any age group. It's honestly all a kink. Are you attracted to elderly people? No? That's because you have a different kink. And don't get into stupid biological bullshit of reproductive success etc, a woman in her 40s who's given birth before is in some cases much less likely to die in childbirth than a 14 year old who hasn't done it before, arguably. That some people have breeding kinks with their pedo kinks is on them. Like seriously stop being so sexually narcissistic, there are thousands of kinks that combines in thousands of ways. Why do you think your kink is the "normal" one? Like get over yourself.
Whether kinks are disorders or not is a separate topic. Where kinks come from - we don't know 100%. There's some evidence certain brain conditions can cause disorders and sexual dysfunction, so it's possible pedophilia could be induced. Personally I am curious if oxytocin plays a role in pedophilia. You can get oxytocin (note: this is not OXYCONTIN) compounded in a nasal spray from compounding pharmacies. Just need a doctor's prescription for it, it has been used experimentally for social anxiety. I think some pedophiles likely get extra oxytocin from children (and other groups get it from animals in some cases) which is part of what triggers their attraction even if they don't want to harm children.
If you are attracted to someone, that doesn't entitle you to fucking them. Even if you can convince them to say yes somehow.
Consent cannot be given if it's not safe to give dissent. Meaning a "yes" doesn't count if a "no" wouldn't count either. Most kids cannot readily say "no." They cannot consent.
I said nothing about age, but about development.
I said nothing about my own personal attractions. If you're asking, I'm not a hebephile. I would be lying if I were to claim I've never found one physically attractive, but my general physical sexual attraction is probably about as vanilla as it gets. My actual kinks, not so much. But that's a completely different topic.
Just like I defend homosexuality as a normal, healthy attraction, I defend this. That doesn't make me gay, or a hebephile.
And I pretty clearly said explicitly otherwise. Literally this whole thing about consent is just completely pulled out of your ass as it has nothing to do with anything I've said. Hell, you're whole rant is completely detached from the reality of anything I've said.
Yeah "development" what a creepy word and again, "development" has nothing to do with it. That's why I brought up the breeding kink part - the classic argument every libertarian creep who does the "It's hebephile not pedophile" dog whistle says this EXACT thing. Like you all are clearly watching the same porn. It's so weird of you. Idk how I have had this exact conversation with so many of my male peers. The other points I made are entirely relevant when it comes to fucking children. Many people think rape is a turn off, ya know?
"Development" is meaningless. It doesn't make it okay because the person looks a certain way. A "developed" body is not an "adult" body; many adult women have no breasts and no curves, and many young girls, some as young as 9!! get breasts. Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not "developed"?
That you associate "development" with sexual attraction is a YOU kink. It's not an EVERYONE kink. It's not the "natural" state for people. It's a kink. That you're justifying it with "well she looks fuckable and like she could have a baby to me" with no self awareness is... yikes.
lol. It literally has everything to do with it. That's the whole point: when children enter into and finish puberty, they become capable of reproduction, so from an evolutionary perspective, that is a normal time to start finding them attractive. Just labelling it as "creepy" is an attempt to undermine the point because it's hard to actually address it.
I tell you I'm not into it, and what do you do? Lie, and claim I'm into it. I'll state it again, it never ceases to amaze me how far people will go to deny reality to hold onto their irrational beliefs.
Agreed. Which is why, as I've already stated, it's 100% wrong to have sex with them.
The fact that you need to ask this question just goes to show how absolutely ignorant you are of the topic, and probably shouldn't even be discussing it at all.
Holy shit, this insane. lol This debate never ceases to crack me up. You're literally arguing that being attracted to people who have gone through puberty is a "kink." Even if you think that the stage of development that it's "appropriate" to become attracted to them is full adult, Tanner stage V, you still are arguing that development is important. But you are claiming this is nothing but a kink.
I have full self awareness of what I'm saying. It's the people who claim that development stages has nothing to do with it and is a "kink" are the ones who lack the self-awareness to understand how little they know of what they talk about... yikes.
Reproduction has nothing to do with sexual arousal in people, unless they have a reproduction kink. It is not "normal" to hinge your arousal on reproduction. Ancient humans likely had no idea sex acts lead to babies. Their arousal was hinged on other things, kinda like most animals. Do you think stallions know they will have a baby when they breed a mare? Probably not. Reproduction is again, a kink. Which I have informed you repeatedly. That it's been normalized by the groups you roll in, is a you thing.
You are narcissistic about your kinks. A lot of men are, because they often keep them secret until they go onto forums for that kink where they can all engage in it together and share porn and ideas. Then they think "I'm vanilla and normal," and project their kinks onto reality as if that's objective. It's not. You're wrong.
It's creepy because of what it implies about your general philosophy to kids.
You are into it. You are saying it's "normal" as long as they are developed. You've admitted finding young teens attractive before. This is about you. Stop being a coward.
Answer me: Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not “developed”?
You're moving goalposts. First, you say it's because they are developed- which describes a body type. Then you say it's because they can reproduce - which describes their eggs/womb and ability to carry a baby - which a "developed" 12 year old likely cannot do compared to a 35 year old who is flat chested and not curvy. And 'above puberty' includes people who cannot reproduce and are sometimes not "developed," such as elderly women. So which is it? Which do you mean? Or are you just making shit up because you think your kinks are "normal" and you've never analyzed or critically thought about them?
All sexual attractions are kinks. That's my point - there is no "normal" sexual arousal state. Calling it "normal" justifies a kink that harms others and allows for reactionary thinking. It's the same reason rapists rape and don't realize it - they think their rape kink is "normal." Look at Andrew Tate and his fans.
Being attracted to minors is not "normal" as an adult. It's just "normal" for you.
It's called Pedophilia, he's a pedophile or in the making.
It's actually called hebephilia when it's about the sexual attraction to pubescent children between 11 and 16
But what if he gets her killed at age 20? Massive savings.
That blue checkmark carries more information then any single word ever could.
Richard forgot to include nonbinary and intersex options in his poll. What a blunder! Egg on his face, he sure looks incompetent
Sadly, this is so common around the world, I would say that if this poll was done for every person in the world we would have maybe even a tie.
I'm talking about child marriages (which are legal and common in some US states) they are basically this, except there is less money, some of it goes to the parents, some to the child (because shared assets)
In the States where child marriage is not legalized, it's treated as an informally arranged marriage. Basically, one guy promises his daughter to another guy in exchange for something and they wait until the girl is 18 or in some cases 17 or 16 before getting anything on paper.
You did notice the majority of “No” answers came from men?
Are you seriously trying to say that, because of this random online post on a predominantly male site (where most of the yes answers for "women" are likely men) that means that the predatory group isn't overwhelmingly men when it comes to child marriages? Or am I just cataclysmically misunderstanding your comment about the stated gender of the responses of post in response to someone simply talking about girls getting informally married off to men?
The UNFPA & UNICEF report that 95% of adults who marry children are men, while 5% are women. Between 85% and 95% of marriages between a child and an adult involve an adult male marrying a girl. The UN claims that in the US in particular, 86% of married children are girls, a significant majority of whom are married to adult men. According to the UNFPA, globally 25-30% of women get married before age 18, while 3-5% of men get married before age 18; and while most girls who get married are married to adult men, most boys who get married are married to girls (who are also children). Additionally, 10% of women get married before age 15, while 0.3% of men get married before age 15. This is likely because 1. a majority of cultures are highly patriarchal and young girls are often "sold off" as sex objects for (usually wealthy) men and 2. females are highly likely to be able to reproduce before 15, while males are more likely to not be able to reproduce until mid-adolescence, so girls are married much younger (again, nearly always adult men) in order to have children, while boys are usually married to girls around their age because they can have children anyways.
It's not like child marriage between boys and adult women doesn't happen, but let's not pretend that an overwhelming majority of adults marrying children aren't men marrying girls. The same goes for these unofficial marriages.
"Hello person in desperate poverty, I am your landlord and I am here to offer you a discount on the exorbitant rents I charge you for existing. All you need to do is this single morally abhorrent thing. After that, you're on easy street for the rest of your life."
I suspect the number of people who would take this deal is well over 50%, if for no other reason than being press ganged into doing morally repugnant things by an exploitative economic system is the norm and the enormous payout is the exception.
A better way to spin this is to rephrase the question: "Blah blah 14 year old blah blah everyone consents, in exchange for $120 half of which goes to your pimp." Then you get to the more grisly truth of what's being asked, and the popularity falls significantly.
Where I live, it's called arranged marriage, a form of forced marriage where parents choose who their child should live with. It's more common than many people would imagine, especially among women, girls and other non-male genders, and 93% of married Indians had an arranged marriage (data from a 2018 survey, source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-59530706)
Yes exactly.
Wait, doesn’t this just mean the sample size of men was more than 3/4 of the entire survey population?
If you are trying to run a binary-gender survey, wouldn’t it make more sense to have 1:1 representation?
It's this own dude's readers responding to him. 10/10 self own.
95.7%
of men who responded said noof those responding as men said no60.9%
of women who responded said noof those responding as women said noEta: fixed phrasing to show that reported gender/sex may not be accurate
That is assuming of course that all the women who said yes are in fact people being truthful and not creeps 'as-a-black-man'ing.
Since they're following the guy, I'm pretty suspicious of that polling regardless.
Also keep in mind that the normative number of people voting as women is drastically lower thereby significantly manipulating the actual ratio. This is, even when everyone would actually answer truthfully, by no means a factual representation
Isn't gender always self reported in these kind of questionnaires?
Given the nature of the post and that its in Twitter, I would expect the number of people voting as a gender/sex they do not identify with to be higher then if it were conducted elsewhere
Someone needs to check that guys computer for CP.
How online do I need to be to understand this?
"Libertarians"
In poor third world countries you find old men paying the father to let them rape his virgin underage girl or force marry her. His justification is that they are poor and that man paid them "a lot". Only the lowest scummiest cunts of people would allow this upon their daughter and set her for life-long trauma of all types.
Found the pedophile.
What a creeper, it's almost he wants to do something similar; Yikes, is all I have to say.
i feel gross just from reading that.
Most sane twitter user
Uh. No. That's not correct. That's not even remotely correct.
You can't have a private contract for an act that is illegal. This isn't a contract for marriage. This is a contract for sex. Moreover, it's a contract for sex with a person that can not legally consent to sex.
WTF is wrong with you?
You also can't legally enter a contract of any kind at that age.
This isn't completely true, children actually can be married at that age including to adults in some states. There's also no such thing as statutory rape between spouses in this circumstance. The kid's spouse also usually become their guardian, so they cannot get divorced without the adult spouse's permission in many places.
Ok, I forgot marriage was a contract.
That's alright, I kinda used your comment to spread awareness about child marriage in the US. I want people to know so they can vote to ban it. Overwhelmingly most voters in the US do want to ban child marriage but they don't even realize it exists.
Hey, it's a good cause. I'm not mad about it. Child marriage is a disgrace and people should be made aware that it still exists and who it is that is fighting for it to continue.
This isn't strictly true, in some states you can marry kids. And they make an exception for statutory rape if it occurs between spouses.
The legality of paying for intimate acts varies wildly from country to country and even in the USA, from state to state.
I make no judgement about what is considered legal or not in any given area.
I'm mostly thinking about the common law of marrying off young persons. In many places the lower limit on how old you must be to marry, is shocking. Marrying a 14 year old isn't unheard of, even in developed countries. I just don't draw a significant distinction between being married at such a young age, and being paid for intercourse at the same age. Marriage at that age may be arguably more "legal" depending on the jurisdiction, but in my mind, you're not marrying a 14 year old for their hobbies, or personality. The only reason, again, that I can think of, where someone would propose to be married to someone so young, is if the person proposing the marriage is a similar age, or if they want to have sexual relations with someone who is that young.
So for me the line is blurred and I often conflate the point in my mind.
More to the point, statutory rape generally requires that the parents are opposed to the sexual acts. Otherwise, charges are generally not pressed against the offender. Again, this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To that end, if you have the written consent of the parents to engage in sexual acts with someone who is below the age where they can legally make such decisions, then it might be legal, again, depending on the jurisdiction.
This is entirely, and completely commentary from a neutral standpoint. Personally, I think anyone who would seek such an arrangement needs to see a therapist, or be locked up. Morally, I don't agree with it, but often, the law does not conform to my sense of morality.
I'm just saying, I understand that some places allow for these kinds of contracts to exist. I'm not saying I agree with it at all, because I don't. I can't imagine any situation where a father, or mother, would willingly subject their child to that situation, unless they were truly and utterly desperate.... But the matter of their desperation for money to survive, is an entirely different discussion.
It is 100% illegal in ever single state in the US to pay for sex with someone that is below not only the age of majority, but also the age of consent. The minimum age of consent in the US is 14.
1000% false, in every single case. It may be more difficult to prosecute without parental involvement, but it is not required. Statutory rape is a strict liability crime; no mens rea is required. And bluntly, any prosecutor that failed to deal with an underage prostitution case would lose their job in the next election; "soft on child sex crimes" isn't a winning platform.
Oh, you misunderstand.
By expressing an understanding of the legalities of it, and speaking from a neutral viewpoint, plus some deficiency in reading comprehension (you clearly didn't read the whole post), you seem to have assumed that my statements meant I agreed with any of the laws I was discussing.
I don't.
Let me put it simply (and I said this in my previous post, more or less): no adult person should be seeking this kind of "deal" or "relationship" with someone who is under the age of consent.
I recognise that with parental permission you can attain concent to (at the very least) marry an underage person. I don't agree that people this young should be allowed to be married or perform sexual acts even with the consent of the parents. The law disagrees.
I don't like it, and I don't have to.
My post was largely a commentary on how fucked up the legal system is for allowing this.
You want change? Pass new laws.
"Pretty much everywhere"?
Dude do you even know what "common law" means? There's basically one in Europe, the UK.
Secondly, you can't make contracts to void laws/avoid regulations set by laws. You can't make a private contract that someone agrees to work for you for less than the federal mandated minimum wage.
You can't make a contract saying you're selling someone to be a slave, as slavery is illegal in the US (unless you're put in prison, US industry strongly relies on prison slave labour).
You can't make a contract saying you allow someone to murder you. That person would still be trialed as a murderer.
I think it does, however indirectly. When the rich start getting more relaxed about buying people and treating them more as product than people.... it will affect us all.
You could get people to do absolutely inhumane shit if you took 10 million to a very poor country and just started egging people on. People would literally kill for just hundreds of dollars. With 10 million you could make some sort of mad max murderdome type of setup. Just have "private contracts" with everyone, and it's okay, right? No need to consider the morality in the slightest.
Yes. But apparently you don't.
Yes, the UK uses common law. Also, so do many current or former "Commonwealth", including, but not limited to, the USA.
Common law is why overturning Roe v. Wade made abortion bans possible. Roe v. Wade was the common law precedent that allowed for women to have the right to an abortion.
And no, contacts cannot overrule the law, whether from a law passed by the governing body, or by common law. This is why i essentially said, if you don't like it/agree with it, change the laws.
Make it illegal. Change the law to make it illegal.
Then, regardless of the contract, it is a crime.
As for the rich and any affect this might have on me.... The rich do this shit, not to dehumanize us "Poor's", but because they've already dehumanized us. I don't think this is a cause, this is an effect.
But I'll give you an upvote for sharing your opinion. I'll fight anyone who tries to take your opinion away from you.
Oh you went from "pretty much everywhere" to "well, uh, many commonwealth countries".
You sure you didn't have to go check what it meant, and then you were shocked at how many of what we'd consider "developed countries" actually do not use common law?
In the EU, only Ireland still has common law.
All others use civil law. And I'm sure you didn't know that. :)
And precedent is present in civil law systems as well.
Why... would it affect you. What on earth are you talking about?
You know, one guy murdering another guy over a pack of raisins doesn't affect you, but I have no earthly idea why this should stop you from caring it happened.
For me it's about freedom.
Freedom has limits that most don't really talk about. To me, the limits of freedom exist where your freedom and the freedom of others intersect. If your freedom is impacting the ability for someone else to enjoy their freedoms, then it needs to be a matter settled by law.
Murdering someone kinda removes that person's ability to exercise their freedoms.
Someone getting freaky behind closed doors, doesn't affect anyone else's freedoms.
Both individuals engaged in that act should be free to consent to the act, and revoke that consent at any time.
I'll reiterate, this assumes informed consent, not implied or assumed consent. Again, reiterating: children that have no understanding of sexual acts, or what they entail, cannot provide informed consent because they do not understand what they are consenting to, or what the ramifications are of that consent.
Does that clear things up a bit?
A 14 year old.
I like how you keep putting up these disclaimers like they're supposed to absolve you of being a weirdo, but you keep building in these little exceptions for "very mature" children.
Mystik, how much the child knows about sex does not matter. That's not why it's illegal.
The law makes it legal or illegal.
You miss the point.
The fact is, the law specifically allows for this shit. Holy crap people.
The judicial system is so fucked that you can get parental consent and do whatever you want with the underage person. That's fucked.
The laws are fucked.
Now that I've pointed it out, and you bozos don't know enough about the law you live under, you think I agree it should be allowed. I don't.
It's allowed.
I don't agree with it.
It's it clear yet? Fix your laws. Period.
Dude I think the proper nomenclature is "unalive"
"I'm poor and circumcised so that makes it ok to rape minors" that's you pal.
Yeah, children cannot consent to sex with adults so even if he could argue that poverty under capitalism is worse than rape then society has completely failed those children. Wealth disparity under capitalism has grown too large and I fear that capitalism is both destroying the planet and society.
Why can they consent to anything else? What's the difference?
The problem is the power in balance. A teen or child cannot consent to sex with an adult because they are not on the same cognitive level and the adult could easily be preying on and manipulating the child.
The power imbalance exists whether they're having sex or not. That power imbalance is constantly exploited for anything and everything that isn't sex and isn't getting anyone paid.
You're not wrong, but one evil doesn't justify another.