Reminds me of shit saying I heard when I was 14. "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed". Even then that was a fucked up thing to say. But I heard it a lot as a teenager. Mostly from other teen boys who didn't know shit about sex.
When cherry's are red the ripe for plucking, when girls are 16...
You get the rest.
Jimmy Savile and Trump are cut from the same cloth. The fact other people were doing it too doesn't make their behaviour less abhorrent, it just means that abhorrent behaviour was more common.
The fact other people were doing it too doesn't make their behaviour less abhorrent, it just means that abhorrent behaviour was more common.
Did something I posted indicate I think otherwise or was this just an additional thought?
For the record, I don’t care who the paedophile is, it’s disgusting and perverse regardless. I do question whether the behavior was more common or if it’s just gotten pushed further out of public view because of social norms changing.
Think I heard that one too, but the other was more popular. Of course I heard fat mommy jokes and "You're so stupid" jokes. Even the dumb blonde jokes. I mean in 90's you didn't have worry about getting canceled for your fuck up humor.
Yeah I remember sitting around with other 10-12 year olds as we told jokes we read in Playboy magazine. Same magazines we found either in the woods, or your step dads drawers. I only remember a couple of the jokes. But I know a couple of them looking back would only be funny to a 10 year old boy.
Yeah this is the generation that brought us 4Chan and the Xbox gaming lobby.
I God damn wish there had been consequences for the hate some of my bosses had flung around back then. Just like constantly putting down anyone deemed lesser.
I always heard the reply, “a well used field grows no grass”. I don’t like to think about that though, it’s my friend’s dad who I heard it from most memorably.
I remember hearing "if there's grass play ball" from fellow kids meanwhile we didn't even have any grass, or any idea what playing ball really entailed. At least those of us who were lucky.
Yeah maybe that was a baseball thing, because I didn't hear that one. Probably saw it in a tweet or something. But as kid no, just the one I posted. Plus knew a kid that his goodbye was. "Got cows to feed, and women to breed" He said this shit everytime he had to go.
Didn’t she accuse someone of SA when she was underage?
Yes, when she was 17, so her comment about girls even younger is insane.
But that gets to the heart of Azealia Banks. She’s insane. She’s part of the lgbtq+ community and her sibling is trans, but she supports JK Rawlings and belittles trans women and has likened the lgbtq community to the KKK.
She believes that African Americans should be paid reparations for the crime of slavery, which zero republicans would ever grant.
She flip flopped her endorsement of Trump in 2016. Despite saying women’s issues were too important to vote for him, she celebrated his win. She then did the same basic thing in 2025, but for who knows what reasons.
She’s pro Russia as hell as well as a Zionist.
I’m not sure how we get it to happen, but she needs to put up her brain for scientific studies. The neurons are firing in ways rarely seen in humans.
Her ability to find the most wrong take possible on just about everything is genuinely unearthly. You could generally set a pretty reliable moral compass for yourself by just adopting the exact opposite of her beliefs.
Even if you bent over backwards to agree with this tweet, just look at the facts of the Epstein case. These girls were sex trafficked. Epstein and Maxwell sought out vulnerable girls and took advantage of them. They were not girls in a traditional mindset trying to find a husband and have kids.
Exactly. Trafficked and trapped. For whatever reason the originator of the tweet chose to do what she did it’s not the same as being carted off to an island full of pedos with no safe place to escape to.
WTF? No, Ms. Banks, I was a teen in the 80s and no, my friends were not doing 40 year olds, eeeew. That was still called Statutory Rape. Girl, you are 34, do you find 14 year old boys attractive? I thought not. Those are children.
She's right about one thing. This shit was prolific back in the sixties, seventies and eighties. Operation Yewtree blew the lid on just how rife paedophilia was amongst celebrities and how the (British) establishment had been covering it up for decades.
The Epstein files should have been a similar watershed moment for the US, but unfortunately some very powerful people are on that list.
Exactly. I didn't even hear the word "paedophile" until 2000 when Sarah Payne was murdered.
In school in the 90s there were always 13 and 14 year old girls with older boyfriends, like we're talking 19 or 20 with cars and they could buy them cigarettes and booze.
We never really thought much of it.
They had very much made this shit normal, and I'm glad we now don't.
Which schools did you go to? I never heard of this. Maybe im a little younger and that's it. Maybe it's an England/USA thing. I was 16 in 2000.
Also the shift of the acceptable age range of a romeo/Juliette situation is a little different from a bunch of 40+ yo rich guys shipping some tweens to a remote island for any reason.
Until a few years ago, the age of consent in my country was 14. There weren't just 13 and 14 year olds with 19 or 20 year old boyfriends, even 14 and 25-27 was a pretty common combo. Guy I went to middle school with was such an immature dumbass, he HAD to work 14 year olds to get laid at 19. Because a 15 year old would see through him already. Think he's changed now, but of course he had to father a child with a 15 year old first.
But this isn't the 80s or 90s. No, I grew up in the '00s and '10s. This is my experience with my peers in late 00s and even early 10s.
I don't know any teenagers anymore, but there's a podcast about sex and standup comedy (they wanna talk about standup comedy since they're both comedians, but since they named it "pussy eaters", they only get emails about sex) and holy hell, one girl out of every 4 seems hell-bent on talking about how they lost their virginity as a teenager to an older guy. Another girl out of every four is talking about how she either got raped or almost got raped (as an adult usually, not that it makes things much better). They just stopped reading emails from their listeners.
I remember in school in the 2000s 13 and 14 year old with 19 or 20 year old boyfriends. I bet many still do today but I don't hang out with 13 or 14 year olds at my age to know of the few that do.
In Canada the age of consent was 14 for a long time. There reason was they didn't want to make kids out as pedophiles like America does. So now we have a more complicated consent system that protects the kids from being taken advantage of by people way older but allows kids to do what they have been doing for centuries.
Pedophiles are attracted to children before they hit puberty. If you try to fuck fourteen year olds you are a weird fucking creep (and probably a republican). But you are not a pedophile. You're watering down the word.
No idea who this is, but they have a lot to unpack in therapy. 15 year olds don't seduce adults...
I hate to tell you, but you and your grandmother's trauma are valid, and not at all okay. The fact that they are trying to rationalize it tells me they know on some level that what happened wasn't okay. Its a defense mechanism.
Well they shouldn't successfully be seducing adults, but some will try.
Back in college at my place of work you'd have the high school freshman customers coming in and hitting on the college guys, pretty hard. Of course it would have been shameful to actually roll with it because what are you, some loser that can't get a real college girl?
Also I recall my classmates in junior high and high school trying to flirt with some of the teachers. And of course you have the "get good grades from the professor" trope for college, which technically are adults but the power dynamic and creepiness is the same.
15 year olds aren't exactly thinking well enough but they certainly have the hormones going.
By even debating this idea of 'at what age is having sex with children OK', you fall into the trap. We already have laws defining age of consent for a reason.
The trap is to distract you from trump's sex crimes. They need to normalize statutory rape as acceptable, because more and more stuff is going to be coming out about his doing that. His base is horrified by pedophilia, but not by misogyny.
This is how they prep the base to be just fine with crimes trump did (in this case rape) when more info comes out. Keep their thinking in black-and-white: 'pedophilia is evil, but trump didn't do that, so he's not evil! He's still our Daddy.' So they'll ignore his rapes of under-age girls just like they already ignore his rapes of adult women.
So by saying,
"Sure, why wouldn't anyone be attracted to a girl whose body is developed even if she's 'technically' under age -- it's not like it's pedophilia or anything, which would be wrong!". As long as they're 13+ it's fine!"
they are saying statutory rape is OK as long as the girl is at least 13. No, that's just how the new Christian Nationalist theocracy wants it to be. The crap about "it was acceptable back in his day, only taboo since the '90's" is of course bullshit. I'm surprised they didn't claim it was only made taboo by the 'woke left'.
A lot of time people comment on their own life as a youth, not really understanding the fucked up parts were in fact, fucked up.
I didn't know that the insane shit my parents put me through wasn't normal life for everybody else. Took me well into my 20's to figure it out and even though I'm 50, I am still re-discovering memories that remind me just how fucked-up my life was back then. Re-connecting with my sister after 2 decades of estrangement due to family dysfunction and addiction, new realizations are still unfolding for me.
I think you've hit the nail in the head, she's self-reporting what her life was like as a teenager but it hasn't yet clicked just how fucked up it all was
Azealia Amanda Banks was born on May 31, 1991, in New York City's Manhattan borough; she was the youngest of three.[5][6] Her single mother raised her and her two siblings in Harlem, after their father died of pancreatic cancer when she was two years old.[7] Following her father's death, Banks says that her mother "became really abusive—physically and verbally. Like she would hit me and my sisters with baseball bats, bang our heads up against walls, and she would always tell me I was ugly. I remember once she threw out all the food in the fridge, just so we wouldn't have anything to eat." Due to escalating violence, Banks moved out of her mother's home at age 14 to live with her older sister.[8]
At a young age, Banks became interested in musical theater, dancing, acting, and singing. At 16, she starred in a production of the comedy-noir musical City of Angels, where she was found by an agent who sent her to auditions for TBS, Nickelodeon, and Law & Order, all without success.[9] At this point Banks decided to end her pursuit of an acting career, citing the stiff competition and overall sense of nonfulfillment.[10] Because of this lack of fulfillment, she began writing rap and R&B songs as a creative outlet. She never finished high school, instead choosing to embark on a career as a recording artist.[5]
Ok, so she got her start fucking her way into roles and doesn't want to admit that it was wrong. This is where a lot of those Epstein Island kids end up. That's why you don't hear as many testimonials as you think you should. They got gaslighted into thinking it was normal.
If she was having sex with people to get roles at 15 or 16, that makes her a victim with a vulnerable background exploited by people with power and opportunities.
You're acting like a teenager with no real world experience made a plan to climb the career ladder using sex is more likely than a child without stable future job prospects was groomed by pedophile entertainment industry producers, exploited, and happened to be one of the lucky ones that had a career at the end of it.
"she started fucking her way into roles" doesn't sound like you're talking about a child. This framing comes across as she was intentional an conniving instead of a victim.
You're free to interpret it that way. I'm stating it that way because that's what I would tell her to her face after sticking up for Donald Trump. If she wants to believe she had agency at that age, I'll call her out as if she did.
If there isn't actual evidence that someone used sexual favors to get where they are, that's honestly a pretty sexist assumption to make about a person, since it's an assumption only ever made of those who were AFAB
Don't feel bad, I'm bad about skimming without really realizing I'm doing it and that was like the one sentence I auto piloted over first time reading it. I was like "yeah that's a weird thing to say but, that's a stretch to say this means that." Then I reread and was like "oh. Oh my."
Prolly she grew up in the 90's, fucking older men, and only later has had people go "oh that doesn't sound healthy" and presumes that there just was no judgement at all from anyone when she was actually doing it, just because she didn't witness any personally.
In California, the age of consent was 18 by 1920. In the 1960s and 1970s when I became sexually active, almost nobody I knew was 18 or over at the time of their first sexual experience. It was a widely-ignored law, selectively enforced. When I was under 18, most of my partners were of similar age (and on the Pill).
In the 1880s, the age of consent in California was 10. That was typical for most states in that era. The increase to 18 was driven by the same odd alliance of progressive eugenicists and Christian reactionaries who brought us Prohibition.
The widespread belief in the US that two 17-year-olds having a screw should be subject to prosecution seems insanely punitive and contrary to human nature.
It's 16 in the UK, which in my view makes better sense. All of the EU countries set the age of consent somewhere in the 14-16 range.
When I was under 18, most of my partners were of similar age (and on the Pill).
Lots of places have romeo and juliet clauses for this. I.e when it's two 16 year olds, it's fine. If it's 16 and 25, it's not.
It’s 16 in the UK, which in my view makes better sense. All of the EU countries set the age of consent somewhere in the 14-16 range.
16 is bordering fine, but anything below that is too low IMO. Again, the so called romeo and juliet laws are important here. It means that even if the age of consent is 18, teenagers can still do it among themselves and if you're 15 and your 17 year old partner suddenly turns 18, that usually isn't a big deal either. Let's protect teenagers from grown ass adults, but let them sleep with each other because that's going to happen anyway, teenagers are crazy filled with hormones - so they should be able to get contraceptives and stuff without any worry of legal repercussions if anyone finds out.
Simply because it was the norm it doesn't mean it's right. Pederasty was definitely a thing, but a Jewish historian who lived in the Roman era said the children clearly do not like it. And grim as it will sound, there are plenty of children in South East Asia abused by Western sexpats. You can definitely see how distraught the children are while the pedophile walks proudly with his chest high.
My great-grandmother, who was born in 1910, may have gotten married at 13 (iirc her husband was 17-18 at the time) and had my grandmother when she was 14... but that's doesn't make it "right" that she was a teen mother. She married young to get out of an abusive home life and that was her only way out at the time.
For anyone that doesn't know about her, yeah, she's crazy. But she's not really "political"
But what she's saying about it not being a big deal before the 90s...
Yeah, that's unfortunately true, and in lots of communities a 14 year old being pregnant just ain't that notable.
We have a 38 year old grandma in politics that will never shut up. She married and had kids with a guy she met who flashed her at a bowling alley while underage, and lied to the cops for him when others reported a drunk guy was wiping his dick out in front of a bunch of kids in a bowling alley.
Now her teenage son is being charged with child abuse too:
Being underage and pregnant might not be notable in some communities--if the father is also underage. The father being 30+ has absolutely been taboo for at least a century.
The father being 30+ has absolutely been taboo for at least a century.
I mean, I honestly wish you were right, but that was 1975.
It was 1981 Ted Nugent released Jailbait:
Well, I don’t care if you’re just thirteen
You look too good to be true
I just know that you’re probably clean.”
He was 32 years old, and one of the largest rock acts at the time.
And Courtney Love said she performed oral sex on him when she was 12 around that timeframe. (Not really sure how to phrase that, she says it was consensual, but it was rape)
It's wasn't even an open secret, it was just open knowledge.
It's important to understand it, because that's why so many Republican voters excuse it.
Think the point is that at least for rock music scene, it was considered perfectly normal for underage groupies to get with rock stars.
Yeah it was illegal but so were drugs, and we know how famously sober the rock celebrities were of the age....
I think there was taboo unless everyone agreed the older man was "hot". If they got with underage people because they were old creepy ugly dudes that couldn't get with anyone any other way, absolutely taboo.
But if everyone thought they had a choice but happened to also include young women that seemed openly "partying" then people did likely shrug.
Laws are written by people, in part, to enshrine ethics.
No, not all laws are about ethics, or even about what is just and right. But that's the basis of the system.
It's unethical to commit statutory rape, and people have agreed with this sentiment enough to make it very illegal, to the point that you risk jail time for committing it.
When at least one of the marriage partners is under the general marriage age, the marriage is considered underage. Sixteen states completely ban underage marriage: Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Michigan,[2] Rhode Island, Washington,[3] Virginia,[4] New Hampshire,[5] Maine,[6] Oregon,[7] and Missouri.[8] The other states may require the underage partner to obtain either parental consent, judicial authorization, or both, or rely on "exceptional circumstances". The minimum underage marriage age, when all mitigating circumstances are taken into account, commonly ranges from 15 to 17. Five states do not allow a person over 21 to marry an underage person. As of April 2024, four US states do not set any minimum age for marriage.[9]
Georgia raised its age of consent from 14 to 16 in 1995 as did Hawaii in 2001. Colorado lowered its age of consent to 15 in 1971, after it lowered the age of majority from 21 to 18 years.
So....
It continued I to the 90s like Azeala said, and I agreed...
Right?
Like, you're saying legality and ethics goes hand in hand, and this shows that it was legal in some places, so following your logic, it was also ethical in those places until the laws change
Because if not I legitimately don't even understand what point you're trying to make.
Okay, now you're getting into semantics. I will remind you that the song is titled Jailbait, which means statutory rape. And if you look at the lyrics, the song is written pretty clearly from the point of view of a sleazeball.
Would Courtney Love defend her or Ted Nugent's behaviour? I don't want to victim blame but there's a portion of the population who never learned to deal with the abuses (or never had the resources) they suffered. They simply pass the abuse on to the next generation and call it a rite of passage.
I think it's like any other child abuse. Some kids got it worse than others, and some even reframed it as part of a narrative where they don't see it as abuse, but it should never have happened.
Yeah, it's weird how many Americans have a blind spot on what shit was like slightly before their time.
It was pre-internet but not really old enough to be in history books.
But its important we have an accurate view of what it's like, because the people that were 20/30 back then, are 60/70 and still voting today. Hell, with the average age of our political representativea, it's not hard to see why both parties only show interest in releasing the Epstein information, when the other side is the ones who can do it.
We need younger politicians, because those dinosaurs are literally from another time and our values don't match on several fundamental topics.
Someone in their 70s, even 60s, grew up on that culture where it wasn't considered a big deal.
Yeah, it’s weird how many Americans have a blind spot on what shit was like slightly before their time.
It was pre-internet but not really old enough to be in history books.
American here. In high school, I noticed the publishing dates on our history books were older than the freshmen (the youngest grade in most high schools, usually 14 year old.) Those books were falling apart so bad. It was the only book we weren't allowed to take home - they were too fragile and there weren't enough for every student.
Our history classes conveniently stopped covering anything that happened in the 80s or later anyway. I had to learn about the horrors of Reagan as an adult, through my own studies. Considering how much he did to bring about the enshittified world we live in today, some part of me can't help but feel that missing that history lesson was not a coincidence.
So just to give some hope, when I was in high school, my highschool had a really cool setup for the history classes clearly designed to address this problem of history books aging poorly and not enough time in a school year to reasonably cover history. They instead broke history class into 4 separate classes that you take one each year of highschool. First year covered conflict of the first settlers and native people through to the year 1900, second year covered 1900-1950 third year covered 1950-1980 and the final year covered 1980-present, so not only did I get to learn about events like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire and Watergate but also we talked about the War on Terror (because I was also born in the 90s) and many of Bush Jr's policies
Obviously being in public school, they took a relatively safe approach to covering some of the stickier topics (I specifically remember being royally confused when learning about the Red Scare and kinda going "wait, but what is so bad about communism?" Or the talk about Desert Storm, Desert Shield, and later the Iraq war wasn't as clear about just how pointless those wars were than they could have been. Or the talk about Reagan didn't cover so much of his devastating policies, or the Watergate scandal was basically framed as "Nixon was kinda quirky and didn't trust people!" etc.) but it at least gave an incredible baseline of historical background to understand most US policies from and a baseline to fill in with my own research later on in life (which I absolutely have! Learning more about practices of Mercantilism in the 16th-18th centuries really brings all of the colonialism and enslavement of "lesser" peoples into clarity, or learning in more depth about Nixon's and later Reagan's policies and how they influenced the modern era. How Roger Ailes worked with the Nixon and Reagan administrations and from that experience turned Fox News into the Republican party trumpet that it is today, etc. etc.)
Coincidentally, the Disneyland band Halyx also wrote a song called Jailbait released in 1981 which is not only a better song but was written by a woman.
In addition to that, she’s straight up saying (although not in those terms) that grown men were preying on her at 15. It’s not uncommon at all for victims to refuse to admit what happened to them was wrong, because if it was then suddenly you have to process that. It doesn’t make it okay for her to be saying it’s fine, but it’s definitely different than someone who wants to fuck 13 year olds saying the same thing.
She was really talented, but yeah between her own past abuse, getting signed at 18 with a massive hit and then just nothing...
None of that has helped anything. It's why I've never liked when people pile on her for dumb shit. She is a broken human, and we should help people like that, not point and laugh.
And I have no idea why, but she's somehow always in the headlines. Just a week or two ago she leaked Connor MacGeegor's dick pic because he randomly sent it to her.
She's a successful rap artist who's made some of the biggest songs of the past decade, but also happens to be a deranged person with some extremely toxic beliefs. I'm not really surprised at her antics, and in this case it makes me believe she was sexually abused as a teenager but she has normalized and rationalized her abuse in her head
It's not that social norms have changed. What happens is individual people don't realize how fucked up predators are until they get older. If you observe something as a teen and are told it's "creepy" and "gross," that's all you think it is. But then you get older and realize that it's actually much more sinister than that. There's manipulation, there are systemic injustices that enable it, there are people who don't know how to spot abused kids or feel like they can't upset the apple cart without throwing their own lives away.
It's like saying nobody understood algebra until YOU took an algebra class.
That math doesn't hold up at all unless azalea is like pushing 70 or something. Maybe her mom had her at like 45? I'm 40 and my grandparents weren't even born until the late 30s. And that's without child pregnancies.
98 - 34 = 74 (years between grandma's birth and OP's)
74 / 2 = 37 (average age of grandma and OP's parent when OP's line was born)
Note that OP's parent could be her father (assuming the research didn't reveal it was her mother), which means that one generation might not need to avoid menopause age. Grandma could have had OP's father at 27, and then father could have had her with a 27 year old (when he was 47) and it would all work out. Hell, even at the extreme, gma has father at 12, then father has OP at 62 with someone of any age.
Not saying it's right; 12 year olds should be playing anything other than baby factory and housemaid to some old fuck. But the math seems fine to me.
I was just talking to my wife about how MAGA will find some way to justify trump being a pedophile. They already try to justify rape.... and then i read this.
Times have changed, that's for sure. There are still huge, successful rock acts that are known to have engaged in that. I'm not excusing any of it but it was normalized, and to a degree we overlook it with varying levels of cognitive dissonance. My 16 year old prom date in 1990 went with me as friends because her boyfriend was 29 with the full blessing of her parents. Child porn wasn't illegal until 5 years after I was born.
But also I look back on those times and see so many girls with what today would be clearly seen as signs of abuse (including my prom date). It was always wrong. It was always harmful.
I just want everyone to be aware that healthy, well-adjusted teenage girls do not make a habit of seducing 40yo men. This woman was molested as a child, uses promiscuity as an attempt to "regain control", creates justifications rather than addressing her trauma, and projects her twisted attitudes toward sex onto the rest of society.
Yes. People talk about how hard fascism is to define but I'd argue it can always be identified by the bootlicking subservience of intellect and ethical reasoning to the whims of Dear Leader.
I'd wager that's just authoritative types and not fascists specifically. You can have an authoritarian fascist but bootlicking and subservience is a response to hierarchy and the social pressure to fall in line. While thinking critically with intellectual and ethical reasoning is always outside the desire of hierarchy enshrined in the status quo. Authority will always encourage sycophants.
That definition can cover quite a few autocratic or authorian systems like monarchy as an example. Facism isn't super hard to define if you know what to look for it's just the rubric always seems over the top and hyperbolic when applied contemporarily until whatever regime is being painted with the brush starts emulating Nazis on a 1:1 basis. The people who saw it coming from 10 years ago and ringing alarm bells were seeing fascist rhetoric back then and they weren't wrong it's just people don't veiw facism as being anything but it's worst fully realized iteration.
The easiest guage is to see how much Nationalist sentiment there is paired with calls to return to a mythical golden age, populist rhetoric surrounding a figure with authoritarian sentiments, scapegoating of groups of "outsiders" vs a "rightful inheritor" narrative and active erosion of democratic structures.
Its not, she's just braindead. She has put so many bad takes on social media over the years and this is just the latest doozy.
She's previously accused music producer Diplo of sexually coercing her during the time they worked together when she was 17 years old, she said he was "someone that should be cancelled in the music industry". That was on Instagram in 2023. Now, this.
She's also said Sweden is a racist country and said it should "get bombed" a couple years back. Earlier this year... she moved to Sweden.
I think people use the term ragebait a little differently nowadays. It used to imply someone faking, but now it just means something that makes you angry. Or maybe I'm reading too far into things, but it's a trend I feel like I've noticed.
It's genuinely impossible to tell these days. Nothing is off limits for clout-chasers, so the false assault allegations could just be part of the attention scheme
The right is foaming at the mouthh with hate. They are so deadest on hating groups that they're defending pedophilia (something that harms children) because they want to protect children.
Oh no, my friend, she believed that fucked up shit long before social media. It's the classic language of someone who grew up in a horrible environment.
i actually looked that up and found that the median age of giving birth to your first child was around 21 or 22.
that was largely dependent on wealth though. the wealthier you were, the sooner you had children. that's why most nobles gave birth first around 14 or sth.
That was because the age of menarche (first menstruation) in medieval times in Europe was in the 18-19 range. Malnutrition delays menarche. The vast majority of people then were peasants, and peasants were not wonderfully well-fed.
10 states have a minimum marrying age of 17; 20 states have a minimum age of 16; two states have a minimum age of 15; and four states don’t have a minimum age specified at all.
So it's not really illegal. You just need to be married first.
That's only because they considered marriage implied consent. Statutory rape doesn't consider consent since the victims cannot legally give it. So it only would apply to general rape laws.
Also, that hasn't been true for more than 50 years. Every state has marital rape laws.
I'm not going to bother to explore what the pre-2018 laws were, but even for a lot of the laws where underage people are still allowed to marry, 14 is still younger than age of marriage in general.
And this is separate from age of consent. The four states that have no specified minimum marriage age have age of consent at 16 or 18, so technically you can be married but not having sex. Being a child spouse even without the sex part is screwed up, so it's a somewhat related, but different concern to this discussion.
Incidentally 'technically' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Someone under the age of 18 needs at least parental approval in those four states, and even in the worst of those cases if someone is under 15, a judge has to get involved and explicitly approve the marriage as well as parents. So again, a 14 year old getting married? In theory possible but unlikely even in the few states where it is technically legal.
In short, yes, it was broadly illegal, with some states giving green light at 16, and under more select circumstances earlier (I see the wikipedia table goes as low as '13' 'by age', but unrestricted only goes down to 16. I don't quite understand what the 'by age' and 'by authority' columns even mean, but I'll assume 'unrestricted' is at least where you don't need to find a weird loophole.
I may have been a little kid in the '80s, but I don't remember Jr High being an acceptable part of the general dating pool. I also don't remember any major changes in the '90s to how acceptable relationships between adults and teenagers were.
To the americans in the thread, I'm sorry to break it to you, but your entertainment industry fosters this kind of behaviour. The beauty pageants, the sexualisation of every young female singer, the obsession with high school movies, the fact that roles in movies have a much younger woman depicting an older character, your pop singers being all very close to being too young and singing about sex, it's everywhere. You're made to think that youth is a sexy thing. It seems Hollywood is full of vampires. I'd go as far as to say that this is a problem with your culture in general. I have never seen this kind of behaviour anywhere else that wasn't already influenced by american media. I'm sorry.
Girl, no, we practically share a date of birth, and I remember distinctly that 18 has always been the age of consent, including many places outside the US. I was shocked to find out some places had lower legal limits.
The age of consent in your state may surprise you then. It is 16 for most of them. I grew up in Canada, and it was 14 until 2009, and is 16 now. As a father of teenagers, I've noted that age of consent is a double-edged sword, "protecting the children" not only from would-be sexual predators, but also from themselves when they choose to express their gender differently. Because what it really is, is an age of asserting bodily autonomy. Whether I like it or not, there comes an age when my teens should have a right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. In my opinion, it's fine to pick an age to be a legal guideline for when a person is incapable of asserting their own rights, but we should immediately defer to the choice of an individual whenever a person is old enough to demand it.
I think that back then, people defined pedophilia in terms of the perpetrator's attraction, not in terms of impact to the victim. Essentially, "is it weird for the adult to be attracted to their body?" more than, "would the young person be harmed, physically or emotionally, by sex?" Now we are more evolved.
Back when I was a kid, pedophilia meant what she said - attraction to a prepubescent child. If someone was an adult who thought a physically developed 15-year-old was sexy, that was just logical. Because their bodies had secondary sex characteristics. (It wasn't considered a good idea to actually have sex with them, at least from what I could see. Maybe in Azalia's experience it was considered OK.)
But if an adult thought that a flat and hairless child was attractive, that was messed up on their part. The same way people think that furries or scat play or other fetishes were messed up. But even more so. There was just nothing to consider sexy about an actual child.
Now, we consider the impact to the victim. Pedophilia is defined as attraction to a victim under the age of consent. Because their brain is not fully developed, their body can't handle pregnancy, they are socially able to be manipulated, and a host of other reasons.
I am not trying to be accused of being an apologist, but from someone who grew up in the 90s, I find it strange that we use the same word for someone who rapes a toddler, as someone who "statutory rapes" (as it would be called) a 15-year-old. They are both wrong, but it seems to me that one is much worse than the other. Both because of the attraction (or I guess power fantasy) on the part of the adult, and the impact to the victim.
I think Azalia is wrong to say it was always totally fine. But she is right that it was considered right or wrong for a different reason back then. The definition was different.
I was born in 1975. I don't care how you want to frame it, over 20 people having sex with 15 years olds were considered pedophiles in the 90's. We would even "joking" ask our friends if they had their pedo-pass with them if they smooched with someone 2 years younger.
Pedophilia is defined as attraction to a victim under the age of consent.
No age of consent varies from place to place. Pedo is a medical term with a precise meaning that doesn't vary from jurisdiction and carries the same definition you originally listed.
We impose restrictions both legally, ethically, morally and socially beyond the minimum has has hair and boobs because we care about people being emotionally healthy first with legal penalties and then social ones.
In many places a 40 year old could interact with a 17-18 year old legally without going to jail but would experience shame social consequences and friction designed to encourage people not to be assholes.
When the word is a medical, technical, or scientific word the actual definition is the only definition and anyone else using it differently is just wrong.
No for example your lung will never mean your kidney even if the majority of people failed anatomy technical terms mean what experts say they mean not what others say
Technically there's a distinct word for prepubescent and pubescent attraction, just day to day it doesn't make sense to talk about the nuance because someone will mistake nuance for some sort of green light.
Back when I was a kid, pedophilia meant what she said - attraction to a prepubescent child. If someone was an adult who thought a physically developed 15-year-old was sexy, that was just logical.
Was this the 1890's? I was born in '82, and I can't think of a single time someone was like "oh an adult and a 15 year old child? Yeah that's okay."
I find it strange that we use the same word for someone who rapes a toddler, as someone who “statutory rapes” (as it would be called) a 15-year-old. They are both wrong, but it seems to me that one is much worse than the other. Both because of the attraction (or I guess power fantasy) on the part of the adult, and the impact to the victim.
This is straight priori falacy. Why the fuck are you arguing the 'degrees of okay-ness' for sex with children. This is fucking baffling.
Saying, "Both these things are bad, and one is worse," is not the same as saying, "One of these things is more okay than the other." Neither one is okay.
If we cannot compare bad things without that comparison implying, "one of them is more GOOD than the other," then all bad things are equally bad. If I said that committing pedophilia is worse than beating your wife, am I now saying that beating your wife is better? What about stealing from the cash register at work, or jaywalking? Are all bad things just equally bad, with no comparison possible, or else we're praising the virtues of crime?
To your first point, in that sentence I wasn't talking about actually dating or having sex with the 15 year old. I was talking about looking at them, and thinking they are attractive. So no, nobody would say that the "relationship" was okay, but they wouldn't roundly condemn someone for being attracted to them, or having the urge to look at them sexually, in their own head.
It used to be relatively acceptable to say something like, "Man, I sure think that 15 year old looks hot, but of course I won't go anywhere near her, because she is too young," but never, ever, to say the same about a 5 year old. That first sentiment is the basis of many distasteful songs and jokes and movies. The second one would be met with confusion and revulsion for even thinking it.
And once again, I am not saying that is right. I am just saying how attitudes have changed. For the better. Now we say that even looking at a teenager is wrong. That looking at their body is as bad as looking at a very young child's body. Because in both cases, it's not how messed-up you are in the head to even think about it. It's about how it would harm them to go through with it. And that's a better attitude.
But absent that context, it just sounds like she's guilty of practicing the wrong religion. Like, if she'd hosted a BBQ for her Christian church group with a bunch of dead chickens, who else would be complaining?
There's a difference between the slaughter of animals for food, where it's a heavily regulated process by the USDA to ensure it's as safe, sanitary and humane as possible, and done for a reasonable purpose (feeding people) vs just killing chickens in your home because you think it'll enable you to perform magic
One of the funny things about regulation of the industrialized abattoirs is that the government is far more interested in regulating what you can film and report that on how the businesses actually behave.
The horror stories that come out of these facilities would make Upton Sinclair faint.
Funnily enough I actually work in the industry. I work at the corporate office of a national company that works in several hundred food processing facilities. I also married into a farming family. So I'm just close enough to the food industry to get a really good idea of just what goes down. The most damning thing I've learned is some facilities are terrible but most are pretty good.
One of my duties is managing the company's incident and claims database and while there's plenty of facilities which haven't had an accident in over a decade, there's some facilities that have a reportable accident daily. Every day there's someone who doesn't leave work in the same shape they arrived in. And the people working in these facilities are the most vulnerable people, the formerly encarcerated, immigrants and undereducated minorities. The people who work in these facilities often have no better options available to them.
This is why we need stronger regulatory bodies. Some facilities are dangerous and should not be open (this is across all food producing and processing facilities, not just meat processing plants. There's RTE (ready to eat, meaning you can literally pick up the food off the conveyor and safely eat it) facilities for example that need to be shut down due to terrible safety practices. There's farms that need to be shut down due to dangerous contamination on their crops. This isn't a problem of "meat bad" but a problem of some businesses not upholding basic food safety/safety/animal wellfare standards
For positive change to occur in a specialized industry you need industry knowledge. Yes that introduces conflicts of interest that have to be managed, but to regulate an industry you have limited knowledge of will just lead to chaos and garbage legislation.
For me, I'm just the computer janitor. I keep the servers and computers running and get poked to create a lot of reports from the databases. I'm also at the corporate level where I get to hear a lot of tea regarding what goes on in the field and I'm occasionally invited on site visits so that I can know that I'm giving the folks I support the right tools to do their jobs. So I've got a decent idea of what goes on in the ground and in the field, but I'm also not beholden to the industry
Throughout her career, Banks's social media presence and outspoken views, especially on U.S. politics and race, as well as disputes with other artists, have attracted significant controversy. Banks has been accused of homophobia, transphobia, and xenophobia towards multiple nationalities. Complex noted in 2014 that "she gets more attention for her public feuds than she does for her music".
So she thinks being a 15 yr old horning on 40 yr olds because of daddy issues is the same as 60+ yr olds raping kids being ‘given to them’ by another 40 yr old stranded out on an island?
The fuck ? this person needs to be held in a padded room away from children please. And please slap the drugs out of her dumb face. She’s fucking cooked enough.
Yeah, as societies we don't tend to ban things that nobody does. Civilized societies have banned sex with underaged people because it's harmful for the kids and because people are driven to do it.
Ah yes, the “things were worse in the past and we’re still here, so it should be worse now too” argument.
It’s a conservative favorite to justify fucking kids, fucking over minorities and women, and generally seeking to ruin the people you were told to hate.
I was going to make a comment that it depends on location, but then I pulled up the state for Nicaragua and even over there women are only giving birth in any significant numbers after 16-17. So yea maybe not significantly. Dude's weird
I used to enjoy some of her stuff but had no idea she was so unhinged
Edit - looking more into it, it looks like she was raped as a teenager. While it in no way excuses her comments, that sort of early psychological damage really doesn't help form a healthy relationship with sex without style serious work.
Future generations treating past generations with disdain is kind of the whole point of social progress. Slavery has only been a social taboo in the last couple centuries max. Women's equal political rights are even more recent, only about 100 years. LGBT rights are barely a generation old. So wtf is this argument? It's logical extension is "infant exposure is OK, the Romans did it just fine"
Cute girls often think they can say any old shit and people will forgive them because they're cute. Or they'll play dumb to get out of taking responsibility, and many men fall for that.
Not everyone reaches their peak at 13 like you do. Most need some time to mature before understanding the difference between what they're into, and what the raging hormones in their body are just compeling them to do. That's why these laws exist, because 13 year olds don't know what they want, and predators can easily con them into believing it's them. Because predators aren't all exclusively 40 year olds with visible red flags.
That's why these laws exist, because 13 year olds don't know what they want, and predators can easily con them into believing it's them.
In short, there are no "rest." No human has magically become mature while their body is full of puberty hormones compelling them to be an idiot. You become mature through experience. That's it. That's the only thing that does it.
So if you have enough sexual experience by the time you're 13 to be "mature" enough to know what you want, then you've been molested. Otherwise it's a bunch of hormones telling you what you want, not "maturity."
Everything sexual at that age sounds appealing when you are full of those hormones AND HAVE NO EXPERIENCE to tell what the good choices are from the bad.
When considering the cause and effect of sex - PREGNANCY - I think it's better to make sure immature people cannot get pregnant at 13 and ruin their future before they've lived it.
pregnancy is a worst outcome but it is not the only one. maturity for sex varies wildly across people and some are ready earlier. i understand now how big the differences between people are, and everybody thinks their own experience is universal, and that leads to misunderstanding. i hope my report will demonstrate another viewpoint.
Pregnancy is THE ONLY biologically intended outcome of sex. Humans are mammals. Sex is how they reproduce. It isn't anything more than that no matter how good it feels
Maturity for sex does not vary wildly. You are conflating cultural acceptance, and age of consent for something it is not: maturity. Otherwise, state the name of the culture that believes 13 year olds are mature enough to raise children. Because no culture believes sex doesn't lead to pregnancy. That's something immature people tell themselves to justify their mistakes.
You are doing an incredibly awful job of convincing me or anyone you are mature. I don't care how old you are now, you shouldn't have kids if you are willing let them fuck whoever they want at 13 because you think they MIGHT be mature enough to not get pregnant.
Thats not just immature, it's flagrantly stupid. You'll be a grandma in your 30's, and still not be mature enough to understand why that's a bad thing.
I'm sorry but this is an attack that i don't take well.
Pregnancy is THE ONLY biologically intended outcome of sex. Humans are mammals.
Humans are mammals, yes, but you're missing a whole lot of cultural layer here. Humans have physical contact to show affection and close-ness, or why do you think (some) people hug? I'm not advocating for teenage pregnancy, just to be clear here. I'm not even advocating for teenage sex, in fact. I'm advocating for letting people think for themselves and taking the demands of teenagers seriously.
All too often i see the fear of teenagers having sex weaponized to prevent teenagers from having romantic relationships. It happened to me. Teenagers need exposure and experiences to grow up, or they're never gonna mature.
Teenagers need exposure and experiences to grow up, or they're never gonna mature.
I completely agree. I just think those experiences work best when they are safe from easily preventable trauma - like what having a child at 13 can turn into.
I'm not advocating for teenagers to not think for themselves, I just don't think they're old enough to be parents.
That is the very likely consequences of sex by our biological design. And there's less options to prevent it than ever.
Teenagers do not have the maturity to understand the consequences of sex, just the extreme desire to have it.
And through the smallest mistake a teenager can turn into a parent with parental responsibilities. 13 year olds can't hold a good job, let alone raise a child on their own.
Protecting that from happening used to be a regularly accepted American cultural goal. And I agree it's one that certainly got warped into something weaponized, but the point was to protect childhoods from unnecessarily becoming parenthoods.
I'm sorry but this is an attack that i don't take well.
I'm sorry about that. To be clear, what I meant by "if you're having kids" is "if you're having kids as a teenager because you're just okay with that." (it was a hypothetical, not a direct comment at you)
Clearly I don't think teenagers should.
Yes, I agree that the weaponization of sex against teens can fuck up their personal lives. (It admittedly also did mine.) But there's certainly a middle ground between that and giving them complete freedom.
Finding a balance between safety and experience isn't easy, but erring on the side of caution is best. It's what provides teens the opportunity to gain maturity rather than force it on them.
There are plenty of sane ones, they just don't make the news all the time because mainstream American news runs on outrage and just well, plain old rage.
As an old guy I can say this is true. It was no big deal back then as people matured more quickly. My wife was already raising her younger brothers by that age. Cooking dinners, cleaning the barns, looking after things for a week while they traveled. People now don't seem to mature until they are in their twenties. If ever.
Myself and many others were doing those things when we were 14 too. It doesn't mean we should have been fucking grown adults. Those adults would have been taking advantage of us. It was the same back in your day. The dudes getting with teenagers by buying them alcohol and cigarettes were creeps. Regardless of how "accepted" it was back then.
Look at all the famous groupies back then. Look at the commercials with Brooke Shields. Nobody got upset. Great Granny got married even earlier. Times do indeed change
There was quite a lot of pearl-clutching over Brooke Shields at the time.
One of my grannies got married at 16. She was a miserable woman who hated every day she was alive, yet lived into her 80s. Conclude what you like from that anecdote: I have no idea if she was like that due to early marriage, or if she had other reasons to be hateful and bitter.
Locking this post because there is a lot weird shit and reports coming from it.
This you post
Reminds me of shit saying I heard when I was 14. "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed". Even then that was a fucked up thing to say. But I heard it a lot as a teenager. Mostly from other teen boys who didn't know shit about sex.
There’s also “if there’s grass on the field, play ball”
When cherry's are red the ripe for plucking, when girls are 16...
You get the rest.
Jimmy Savile and Trump are cut from the same cloth. The fact other people were doing it too doesn't make their behaviour less abhorrent, it just means that abhorrent behaviour was more common.
I’m with you until this:
Did something I posted indicate I think otherwise or was this just an additional thought?
For the record, I don’t care who the paedophile is, it’s disgusting and perverse regardless. I do question whether the behavior was more common or if it’s just gotten pushed further out of public view because of social norms changing.
This. Sorry if I made you think I thought you thought otherwise.
All good, that’s why I checked.
Think I heard that one too, but the other was more popular. Of course I heard fat mommy jokes and "You're so stupid" jokes. Even the dumb blonde jokes. I mean in 90's you didn't have worry about getting canceled for your fuck up humor.
We really didn’t. Though those expressions, while still wrong, come across a lot different from a 13 year old than they do from a 50 year old man. 🤮
Yeah I remember sitting around with other 10-12 year olds as we told jokes we read in Playboy magazine. Same magazines we found either in the woods, or your step dads drawers. I only remember a couple of the jokes. But I know a couple of them looking back would only be funny to a 10 year old boy.
Whilst I begin to clutch at my pearls,
refers to cabinets. Right???
Yes, it a southern thing. But you can say that too.
Yeah this is the generation that brought us 4Chan and the Xbox gaming lobby.
I God damn wish there had been consequences for the hate some of my bosses had flung around back then. Just like constantly putting down anyone deemed lesser.
"If not, flip her over and play in the mud."
I always heard the reply, “a well used field grows no grass”. I don’t like to think about that though, it’s my friend’s dad who I heard it from most memorably.
That sounds like slut shaming. Never heard it before.
Also have a listen to Lucille Bogan's classic song "Shave It Dry." The implication is by friction, not with a razor.
And if there isn't...
Oh I'm sure they had an excused lined up for that too. I just don't want hear what it is.
I remember hearing "if there's grass play ball" from fellow kids meanwhile we didn't even have any grass, or any idea what playing ball really entailed. At least those of us who were lucky.
Yeah maybe that was a baseball thing, because I didn't hear that one. Probably saw it in a tweet or something. But as kid no, just the one I posted. Plus knew a kid that his goodbye was. "Got cows to feed, and women to breed" He said this shit everytime he had to go.
Yeah I could have lived without hearing that from a grown-ass man this month.
Oh, you only heard the short version.
My stepdad and uncle would say that shit all the fucking time.
What's the long version?
Old enough to bleed, old enough for me; 8 to 80, blind, crippled, or crazy.
Holy shit! Tell me they were joking?
Yeah, but it is still a pretty shitty "joke"
"si hay pelito, no hay delito" - if there's hair, there's no crime.
"Si pesa más que un pollo, me lo follo" - if it weights more than a chicken, I'm fucking it.
I love that people would think, "Well ... It rhymes so it must be true."
"If It Doesn't Fit, You Must Acquit"
https://www.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/comments/1macphs/comment/n5dqgn6/
Her ability to find the most wrong take possible on just about everything is genuinely unearthly. You could generally set a pretty reliable moral compass for yourself by just adopting the exact opposite of her beliefs.
it's pretty easy. just change the question to "what will enrage the most people and thus get me the most engagement in order to remain relevant?"
then all her takes make sense.
Even if you bent over backwards to agree with this tweet, just look at the facts of the Epstein case. These girls were sex trafficked. Epstein and Maxwell sought out vulnerable girls and took advantage of them. They were not girls in a traditional mindset trying to find a husband and have kids.
Exactly. Trafficked and trapped. For whatever reason the originator of the tweet chose to do what she did it’s not the same as being carted off to an island full of pedos with no safe place to escape to.
Which the poster definitely knows.
When you try to suggest that something is normal based upon your own experience, but everyone just looks at you with concern and pity in their eyes.
Like, yes girl, I was absolutely raped at 14 too, and we both need therapy!
Exactly. It’s a trauma response. Sweeping it under the rug. My parents beat me when I was a child and I turned out fine.
WTF? No, Ms. Banks, I was a teen in the 80s and no, my friends were not doing 40 year olds, eeeew. That was still called Statutory Rape. Girl, you are 34, do you find 14 year old boys attractive? I thought not. Those are children.
Don't be too sure. She started out "in Trump's defense", FFS.
She's right about one thing. This shit was prolific back in the sixties, seventies and eighties. Operation Yewtree blew the lid on just how rife paedophilia was amongst celebrities and how the (British) establishment had been covering it up for decades.
The Epstein files should have been a similar watershed moment for the US, but unfortunately some very powerful people are on that list.
Exactly. I didn't even hear the word "paedophile" until 2000 when Sarah Payne was murdered.
In school in the 90s there were always 13 and 14 year old girls with older boyfriends, like we're talking 19 or 20 with cars and they could buy them cigarettes and booze.
We never really thought much of it.
They had very much made this shit normal, and I'm glad we now don't.
Which schools did you go to? I never heard of this. Maybe im a little younger and that's it. Maybe it's an England/USA thing. I was 16 in 2000.
Also the shift of the acceptable age range of a romeo/Juliette situation is a little different from a bunch of 40+ yo rich guys shipping some tweens to a remote island for any reason.
Until a few years ago, the age of consent in my country was 14. There weren't just 13 and 14 year olds with 19 or 20 year old boyfriends, even 14 and 25-27 was a pretty common combo. Guy I went to middle school with was such an immature dumbass, he HAD to work 14 year olds to get laid at 19. Because a 15 year old would see through him already. Think he's changed now, but of course he had to father a child with a 15 year old first.
But this isn't the 80s or 90s. No, I grew up in the '00s and '10s. This is my experience with my peers in late 00s and even early 10s.
I don't know any teenagers anymore, but there's a podcast about sex and standup comedy (they wanna talk about standup comedy since they're both comedians, but since they named it "pussy eaters", they only get emails about sex) and holy hell, one girl out of every 4 seems hell-bent on talking about how they lost their virginity as a teenager to an older guy. Another girl out of every four is talking about how she either got raped or almost got raped (as an adult usually, not that it makes things much better). They just stopped reading emails from their listeners.
I remember in school in the 2000s 13 and 14 year old with 19 or 20 year old boyfriends. I bet many still do today but I don't hang out with 13 or 14 year olds at my age to know of the few that do.
In Canada the age of consent was 14 for a long time. There reason was they didn't want to make kids out as pedophiles like America does. So now we have a more complicated consent system that protects the kids from being taken advantage of by people way older but allows kids to do what they have been doing for centuries.
Pedophiles are attracted to children before they hit puberty. If you try to fuck fourteen year olds you are a weird fucking creep (and probably a republican). But you are not a pedophile. You're watering down the word.
Edit: Why the hate?!
"Well, ACKCHYUALLY they're ephebophiles."
They're children. Shut the fuck up.
"...I think the reason we don't make those distinctions is because it's very hard to explain the difference without sounding like a pedophile."
Haha, great find! I'll use this next time, save me some heat.
I hope you choke to death on a child's toy, you fucking creep.
No idea who this is, but they have a lot to unpack in therapy. 15 year olds don't seduce adults...
I hate to tell you, but you and your grandmother's trauma are valid, and not at all okay. The fact that they are trying to rationalize it tells me they know on some level that what happened wasn't okay. Its a defense mechanism.
The 15 year old seducing adults was probably abused themselves
Yeah, thats kind of the point of my comment.
Well they shouldn't successfully be seducing adults, but some will try.
Back in college at my place of work you'd have the high school freshman customers coming in and hitting on the college guys, pretty hard. Of course it would have been shameful to actually roll with it because what are you, some loser that can't get a real college girl?
Also I recall my classmates in junior high and high school trying to flirt with some of the teachers. And of course you have the "get good grades from the professor" trope for college, which technically are adults but the power dynamic and creepiness is the same.
15 year olds aren't exactly thinking well enough but they certainly have the hormones going.
I'm starting to get a vibe of: "I didn't understand consent when I was that age and had sex and no one did anything, why should we now?"
By even debating this idea of 'at what age is having sex with children OK', you fall into the trap. We already have laws defining age of consent for a reason.
The trap is to distract you from trump's sex crimes. They need to normalize statutory rape as acceptable, because more and more stuff is going to be coming out about his doing that. His base is horrified by pedophilia, but not by misogyny.
This is how they prep the base to be just fine with crimes trump did (in this case rape) when more info comes out. Keep their thinking in black-and-white: 'pedophilia is evil, but trump didn't do that, so he's not evil! He's still our Daddy.' So they'll ignore his rapes of under-age girls just like they already ignore his rapes of adult women. So by saying,
they are saying statutory rape is OK as long as the girl is at least 13. No, that's just how the new Christian Nationalist theocracy wants it to be. The crap about "it was acceptable back in his day, only taboo since the '90's" is of course bullshit. I'm surprised they didn't claim it was only made taboo by the 'woke left'.
And it probably me moved upward anyway.
A lot of time people comment on their own life as a youth, not really understanding the fucked up parts were in fact, fucked up.
I didn't know that the insane shit my parents put me through wasn't normal life for everybody else. Took me well into my 20's to figure it out and even though I'm 50, I am still re-discovering memories that remind me just how fucked-up my life was back then. Re-connecting with my sister after 2 decades of estrangement due to family dysfunction and addiction, new realizations are still unfolding for me.
I think you've hit the nail in the head, she's self-reporting what her life was like as a teenager but it hasn't yet clicked just how fucked up it all was
When you tell a story from your childhood you think will get a huge laugh, only to be met with a room full of horrified and concerned faces.
Been there, it gets way better. And kudos for reconneing with sane family!
Cheers
From wiki
Ok, so she got her start fucking her way into roles and doesn't want to admit that it was wrong. This is where a lot of those Epstein Island kids end up. That's why you don't hear as many testimonials as you think you should. They got gaslighted into thinking it was normal.
If she was having sex with people to get roles at 15 or 16, that makes her a victim with a vulnerable background exploited by people with power and opportunities.
You're acting like a teenager with no real world experience made a plan to climb the career ladder using sex is more likely than a child without stable future job prospects was groomed by pedophile entertainment industry producers, exploited, and happened to be one of the lucky ones that had a career at the end of it.
She absolutely was a victim when she was a child, but now she's an adult advocating for continuing the cycle of abuse.
"she started fucking her way into roles" doesn't sound like you're talking about a child. This framing comes across as she was intentional an conniving instead of a victim.
You're free to interpret it that way. I'm stating it that way because that's what I would tell her to her face after sticking up for Donald Trump. If she wants to believe she had agency at that age, I'll call her out as if she did.
Literal fatherless behavior. It's sad.
If there isn't actual evidence that someone used sexual favors to get where they are, that's honestly a pretty sexist assumption to make about a person, since it's an assumption only ever made of those who were AFABEdit: I'm too tired. She admitted it in the OOP
Don't feel bad, I'm bad about skimming without really realizing I'm doing it and that was like the one sentence I auto piloted over first time reading it. I was like "yeah that's a weird thing to say but, that's a stretch to say this means that." Then I reread and was like "oh. Oh my."
Growing up in a state where the legal age was 18, we heard "16'll get you 20" back in the 70s and 80s.
So no idea where this nonsense about the 90s started.
Prolly she grew up in the 90's, fucking older men, and only later has had people go "oh that doesn't sound healthy" and presumes that there just was no judgement at all from anyone when she was actually doing it, just because she didn't witness any personally.
Presumably.
In California, the age of consent was 18 by 1920. In the 1960s and 1970s when I became sexually active, almost nobody I knew was 18 or over at the time of their first sexual experience. It was a widely-ignored law, selectively enforced. When I was under 18, most of my partners were of similar age (and on the Pill).
In the 1880s, the age of consent in California was 10. That was typical for most states in that era. The increase to 18 was driven by the same odd alliance of progressive eugenicists and Christian reactionaries who brought us Prohibition.
The widespread belief in the US that two 17-year-olds having a screw should be subject to prosecution seems insanely punitive and contrary to human nature.
It's 16 in the UK, which in my view makes better sense. All of the EU countries set the age of consent somewhere in the 14-16 range.
Lots of places have romeo and juliet clauses for this. I.e when it's two 16 year olds, it's fine. If it's 16 and 25, it's not.
16 is bordering fine, but anything below that is too low IMO. Again, the so called romeo and juliet laws are important here. It means that even if the age of consent is 18, teenagers can still do it among themselves and if you're 15 and your 17 year old partner suddenly turns 18, that usually isn't a big deal either. Let's protect teenagers from grown ass adults, but let them sleep with each other because that's going to happen anyway, teenagers are crazy filled with hormones - so they should be able to get contraceptives and stuff without any worry of legal repercussions if anyone finds out.
The startling part for me, having grown up in an 18 state, is that the majority of US states are 16.
When I heard that for the first time I was like "Oh, that can't be right..."
Yup. 30 states = 16, 8 states = 17, 12 states = 18.
https://versustexas.com/blog/age-of-consent-by-state/
Simply because it was the norm it doesn't mean it's right. Pederasty was definitely a thing, but a Jewish historian who lived in the Roman era said the children clearly do not like it. And grim as it will sound, there are plenty of children in South East Asia abused by Western sexpats. You can definitely see how distraught the children are while the pedophile walks proudly with his chest high.
Do you happen to have the actual quote or a link to the whole thing? Id quite like to read this
I could not find it but i read it in Reddit AskHistorians many years ago. I am afraid to search further as I could get flagged 😂 Fwiw, if I remember correctly, I think the name of the Jewish historian is Josephus. But the only reference from the Internet I could find about him and his comment on pederasty/pedophilia is from here https://voice.dts.edu/review/philo-josephus-and-the-testaments-on-sexuality-attitudes-towards-sexuality-in-the-writings-of-philo-and-josephus-and-in-the-testaments-of-the-twelve-patriarchs/
Thanks!
My great-grandmother, who was born in 1910, may have gotten married at 13 (iirc her husband was 17-18 at the time) and had my grandmother when she was 14... but that's doesn't make it "right" that she was a teen mother. She married young to get out of an abusive home life and that was her only way out at the time.
For anyone that doesn't know about her, yeah, she's crazy. But she's not really "political"
But what she's saying about it not being a big deal before the 90s...
Yeah, that's unfortunately true, and in lots of communities a 14 year old being pregnant just ain't that notable.
We have a 38 year old grandma in politics that will never shut up. She married and had kids with a guy she met who flashed her at a bowling alley while underage, and lied to the cops for him when others reported a drunk guy was wiping his dick out in front of a bunch of kids in a bowling alley.
Now her teenage son is being charged with child abuse too:
https://nypost.com/2025/07/27/us-news/rep-lauren-boeberts-troubled-eldest-son-tyler-charged-with-child-abuse-report/
Where Azealia is wrong, is saying because it used to be normal, means it's ethically ok now.
Which again, is pretty much exactly on brand for Azealis banks. She always stops a step or two too early with her logic.
But lots of people just look at if something used to be accepted to decide if it should be accepted today.
Being underage and pregnant might not be notable in some communities--if the father is also underage. The father being 30+ has absolutely been taboo for at least a century.
I mean, I honestly wish you were right, but that was 1975.
It was 1981 Ted Nugent released Jailbait:
He was 32 years old, and one of the largest rock acts at the time.
And Courtney Love said she performed oral sex on him when she was 12 around that timeframe. (Not really sure how to phrase that, she says it was consensual, but it was rape)
It's wasn't even an open secret, it was just open knowledge.
It's important to understand it, because that's why so many Republican voters excuse it.
The fact that the song is titled 'Jailbait' should tell you something about the ethics of that.
Think the point is that at least for rock music scene, it was considered perfectly normal for underage groupies to get with rock stars.
Yeah it was illegal but so were drugs, and we know how famously sober the rock celebrities were of the age....
I think there was taboo unless everyone agreed the older man was "hot". If they got with underage people because they were old creepy ugly dudes that couldn't get with anyone any other way, absolutely taboo.
But if everyone thought they had a choice but happened to also include young women that seemed openly "partying" then people did likely shrug.
...
Are you one of those people who thinks legality and ethics are the same thing?
Come on now
Laws are written by people, in part, to enshrine ethics.
No, not all laws are about ethics, or even about what is just and right. But that's the basis of the system.
It's unethical to commit statutory rape, and people have agreed with this sentiment enough to make it very illegal, to the point that you risk jail time for committing it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_States
Here's another tidbit:
So....
It continued I to the 90s like Azeala said, and I agreed...
Right?
Like, you're saying legality and ethics goes hand in hand, and this shows that it was legal in some places, so following your logic, it was also ethical in those places until the laws change
Because if not I legitimately don't even understand what point you're trying to make.
Okay, now you're getting into semantics. I will remind you that the song is titled Jailbait, which means statutory rape. And if you look at the lyrics, the song is written pretty clearly from the point of view of a sleazeball.
Would Courtney Love defend her or Ted Nugent's behaviour? I don't want to victim blame but there's a portion of the population who never learned to deal with the abuses (or never had the resources) they suffered. They simply pass the abuse on to the next generation and call it a rite of passage.
We can correct for these things over time
I think it's like any other child abuse. Some kids got it worse than others, and some even reframed it as part of a narrative where they don't see it as abuse, but it should never have happened.
Yeah...
That's literally what the original tweet is doing as well. Which is why I used Courtney as an example.
The easiest way to describe Azealia is basically the Courtney Love of the 2010's
Every time this is brought up, I want to bring up the parody that points out how creepy they were.
Yeah, it's weird how many Americans have a blind spot on what shit was like slightly before their time.
It was pre-internet but not really old enough to be in history books.
But its important we have an accurate view of what it's like, because the people that were 20/30 back then, are 60/70 and still voting today. Hell, with the average age of our political representativea, it's not hard to see why both parties only show interest in releasing the Epstein information, when the other side is the ones who can do it.
We need younger politicians, because those dinosaurs are literally from another time and our values don't match on several fundamental topics.
Someone in their 70s, even 60s, grew up on that culture where it wasn't considered a big deal.
American here. In high school, I noticed the publishing dates on our history books were older than the freshmen (the youngest grade in most high schools, usually 14 year old.) Those books were falling apart so bad. It was the only book we weren't allowed to take home - they were too fragile and there weren't enough for every student.
Our history classes conveniently stopped covering anything that happened in the 80s or later anyway. I had to learn about the horrors of Reagan as an adult, through my own studies. Considering how much he did to bring about the enshittified world we live in today, some part of me can't help but feel that missing that history lesson was not a coincidence.
Lol, reminds of Trevor Moore's "Geniuses":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx8b6RzvC_Y
So just to give some hope, when I was in high school, my highschool had a really cool setup for the history classes clearly designed to address this problem of history books aging poorly and not enough time in a school year to reasonably cover history. They instead broke history class into 4 separate classes that you take one each year of highschool. First year covered conflict of the first settlers and native people through to the year 1900, second year covered 1900-1950 third year covered 1950-1980 and the final year covered 1980-present, so not only did I get to learn about events like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire and Watergate but also we talked about the War on Terror (because I was also born in the 90s) and many of Bush Jr's policies
Obviously being in public school, they took a relatively safe approach to covering some of the stickier topics (I specifically remember being royally confused when learning about the Red Scare and kinda going "wait, but what is so bad about communism?" Or the talk about Desert Storm, Desert Shield, and later the Iraq war wasn't as clear about just how pointless those wars were than they could have been. Or the talk about Reagan didn't cover so much of his devastating policies, or the Watergate scandal was basically framed as "Nixon was kinda quirky and didn't trust people!" etc.) but it at least gave an incredible baseline of historical background to understand most US policies from and a baseline to fill in with my own research later on in life (which I absolutely have! Learning more about practices of Mercantilism in the 16th-18th centuries really brings all of the colonialism and enslavement of "lesser" peoples into clarity, or learning in more depth about Nixon's and later Reagan's policies and how they influenced the modern era. How Roger Ailes worked with the Nixon and Reagan administrations and from that experience turned Fox News into the Republican party trumpet that it is today, etc. etc.)
Coincidentally, the Disneyland band Halyx also wrote a song called Jailbait released in 1981 which is not only a better song but was written by a woman.
Sadly, they only performed for one summer.
In addition to that, she’s straight up saying (although not in those terms) that grown men were preying on her at 15. It’s not uncommon at all for victims to refuse to admit what happened to them was wrong, because if it was then suddenly you have to process that. It doesn’t make it okay for her to be saying it’s fine, but it’s definitely different than someone who wants to fuck 13 year olds saying the same thing.
Yeah, I wasn't insulting her when I said she's crazy...
She has legit mental issues, and her only hit was like a decade ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3Jv9fNPjgk
She was really talented, but yeah between her own past abuse, getting signed at 18 with a massive hit and then just nothing...
None of that has helped anything. It's why I've never liked when people pile on her for dumb shit. She is a broken human, and we should help people like that, not point and laugh.
And I have no idea why, but she's somehow always in the headlines. Just a week or two ago she leaked Connor MacGeegor's dick pic because he randomly sent it to her.
Wow, and here I thought I liked her music. Not anymore, jesus christ what a creep.
Worst part is, I largely feel bad for her. This is the cycle of abuse at work. This woman needs help she'll probably never accept.
It sounds like she thinks it's ok because she was abused the same way. Perhaps she deleted it because she learned it was abuse? Just wild speculation
Yeah that tweet reads as someone who genuinely doesn't understand that her experiences were abuse and not common.
We can only hope ❤️
we be looking very heavy metal and reflective
I'm not sure who this is but the only thing I know about her right now is that she's okay with pedophiles.
She's a successful rap artist who's made some of the biggest songs of the past decade, but also happens to be a deranged person with some extremely toxic beliefs. I'm not really surprised at her antics, and in this case it makes me believe she was sexually abused as a teenager but she has normalized and rationalized her abuse in her head
I'm like you. I don't know who she is. But she has been forced into my feed.
Like when known racist Conner McGregor sends her dick picks. https://www.aol.com/conor-mcgregor-leaked-x-rated-003442730.html?guccounter=1
It's not that social norms have changed. What happens is individual people don't realize how fucked up predators are until they get older. If you observe something as a teen and are told it's "creepy" and "gross," that's all you think it is. But then you get older and realize that it's actually much more sinister than that. There's manipulation, there are systemic injustices that enable it, there are people who don't know how to spot abused kids or feel like they can't upset the apple cart without throwing their own lives away.
It's like saying nobody understood algebra until YOU took an algebra class.
That math doesn't hold up at all unless azalea is like pushing 70 or something. Maybe her mom had her at like 45? I'm 40 and my grandparents weren't even born until the late 30s. And that's without child pregnancies.
Just looked it up, she's 34. So even if her mom was the youngest child of her grandma, she would had to have been 60+ when she had her.
I think the math is fine?
2025 - 1927 = 98 (years since grandma was born)
98 - 34 = 74 (years between grandma's birth and OP's)
74 / 2 = 37 (average age of grandma and OP's parent when OP's line was born)
Note that OP's parent could be her father (assuming the research didn't reveal it was her mother), which means that one generation might not need to avoid menopause age. Grandma could have had OP's father at 27, and then father could have had her with a 27 year old (when he was 47) and it would all work out. Hell, even at the extreme, gma has father at 12, then father has OP at 62 with someone of any age.
Not saying it's right; 12 year olds should be playing anything other than baby factory and housemaid to some old fuck. But the math seems fine to me.
Saying it that way seems more reasonable, but still rather far fetched. Maybe she meant great grandma?
I was just talking to my wife about how MAGA will find some way to justify trump being a pedophile. They already try to justify rape.... and then i read this.
Reminder: Azealia Banks was born in 1991
Times have changed, that's for sure. There are still huge, successful rock acts that are known to have engaged in that. I'm not excusing any of it but it was normalized, and to a degree we overlook it with varying levels of cognitive dissonance. My 16 year old prom date in 1990 went with me as friends because her boyfriend was 29 with the full blessing of her parents. Child porn wasn't illegal until 5 years after I was born.
But also I look back on those times and see so many girls with what today would be clearly seen as signs of abuse (including my prom date). It was always wrong. It was always harmful.
That's absolutely bizarre.
Also, there's a lot of lyrics in older rock music that haven't aged well, to say the least. Kinda disappointing actually.
Real wild for these mental ill people to tell you about the rape they normalized in their everyday life.
I just want everyone to be aware that healthy, well-adjusted teenage girls do not make a habit of seducing 40yo men. This woman was molested as a child, uses promiscuity as an attempt to "regain control", creates justifications rather than addressing her trauma, and projects her twisted attitudes toward sex onto the rest of society.
JFC
What the actual F. Are these people real?
Yes. People talk about how hard fascism is to define but I'd argue it can always be identified by the bootlicking subservience of intellect and ethical reasoning to the whims of Dear Leader.
I'd wager that's just authoritative types and not fascists specifically. You can have an authoritarian fascist but bootlicking and subservience is a response to hierarchy and the social pressure to fall in line. While thinking critically with intellectual and ethical reasoning is always outside the desire of hierarchy enshrined in the status quo. Authority will always encourage sycophants.
Authoritarianism and heirarchy are always bad so its fine
This goober calls multiple people fascist a day, I wouldn't pay too much attention.
That definition can cover quite a few autocratic or authorian systems like monarchy as an example. Facism isn't super hard to define if you know what to look for it's just the rubric always seems over the top and hyperbolic when applied contemporarily until whatever regime is being painted with the brush starts emulating Nazis on a 1:1 basis. The people who saw it coming from 10 years ago and ringing alarm bells were seeing fascist rhetoric back then and they weren't wrong it's just people don't veiw facism as being anything but it's worst fully realized iteration.
The easiest guage is to see how much Nationalist sentiment there is paired with calls to return to a mythical golden age, populist rhetoric surrounding a figure with authoritarian sentiments, scapegoating of groups of "outsiders" vs a "rightful inheritor" narrative and active erosion of democratic structures.
You have an absolute hard-on for calling people fascist, don't you? It's quite bizarre.
I love how much the F word triggers you useless chuds
Sounds like something a fascist would say.
Only fascists get upset when they see fascists being called out.
Wow, what a fucking loser creep. Stay away from all children please.
She hasn't been popular in years. I don't think anybody wants to go near her.
This is Kanye-level rage baiting
Its not, she's just braindead. She has put so many bad takes on social media over the years and this is just the latest doozy.
She's previously accused music producer Diplo of sexually coercing her during the time they worked together when she was 17 years old, she said he was "someone that should be cancelled in the music industry". That was on Instagram in 2023. Now, this.
She's also said Sweden is a racist country and said it should "get bombed" a couple years back. Earlier this year... she moved to Sweden.
She's not rage-baiting, she's just dumb.
I think people use the term ragebait a little differently nowadays. It used to imply someone faking, but now it just means something that makes you angry. Or maybe I'm reading too far into things, but it's a trend I feel like I've noticed.
It's genuinely impossible to tell these days. Nothing is off limits for clout-chasers, so the false assault allegations could just be part of the attention scheme
Does immigration services just not check peoples tweets? Oh wait, it's Sweden, if you say you want to bomb them they give you a green card.
The right is foaming at the mouthh with hate. They are so deadest on hating groups that they're defending pedophilia (something that harms children) because they want to protect children.
They don't want to protect anyone. They want to own their children.
Social media has gotten people to think the most awful things without any hint of irony.
Oh no, my friend, she believed that fucked up shit long before social media. It's the classic language of someone who grew up in a horrible environment.
love how the reaction is to condemn the victim ☹️
So basically: "Yeah, he was raping 14 year olds, it's no big deal. Everyone was doing it."
i actually looked that up and found that the median age of giving birth to your first child was around 21 or 22.
that was largely dependent on wealth though. the wealthier you were, the sooner you had children. that's why most nobles gave birth first around 14 or sth.
That was because the age of menarche (first menstruation) in medieval times in Europe was in the 18-19 range. Malnutrition delays menarche. The vast majority of people then were peasants, and peasants were not wonderfully well-fed.
More body fat? More estrogen production.
do you have a good source on that? it sounds very interesting
So it's not really illegal. You just need to be married first.
Marriage doesn't change age of consent.
I think in several states you CANNOT prosecute your husband, regardless of the other laws
That's only because they considered marriage implied consent. Statutory rape doesn't consider consent since the victims cannot legally give it. So it only would apply to general rape laws.
Also, that hasn't been true for more than 50 years. Every state has marital rape laws.
I'm not going to bother to explore what the pre-2018 laws were, but even for a lot of the laws where underage people are still allowed to marry, 14 is still younger than age of marriage in general.
And this is separate from age of consent. The four states that have no specified minimum marriage age have age of consent at 16 or 18, so technically you can be married but not having sex. Being a child spouse even without the sex part is screwed up, so it's a somewhat related, but different concern to this discussion.
Incidentally 'technically' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Someone under the age of 18 needs at least parental approval in those four states, and even in the worst of those cases if someone is under 15, a judge has to get involved and explicitly approve the marriage as well as parents. So again, a 14 year old getting married? In theory possible but unlikely even in the few states where it is technically legal.
In short, yes, it was broadly illegal, with some states giving green light at 16, and under more select circumstances earlier (I see the wikipedia table goes as low as '13' 'by age', but unrestricted only goes down to 16. I don't quite understand what the 'by age' and 'by authority' columns even mean, but I'll assume 'unrestricted' is at least where you don't need to find a weird loophole.
Wasn't he doing this in the 90s?
I hope he feels the same about TSA pegging. Saying this in that context got him on a watchlist.
What about when it's your 13yo daughter getting railed by a 40yo man? Let's see how you feel about that.
I may have been a little kid in the '80s, but I don't remember Jr High being an acceptable part of the general dating pool. I also don't remember any major changes in the '90s to how acceptable relationships between adults and teenagers were.
It is one thing for a perverted man to say this, but for a woman to say this so she can get some fake maga points is just disgusting.
Pickmes are the WORST
To the americans in the thread, I'm sorry to break it to you, but your entertainment industry fosters this kind of behaviour. The beauty pageants, the sexualisation of every young female singer, the obsession with high school movies, the fact that roles in movies have a much younger woman depicting an older character, your pop singers being all very close to being too young and singing about sex, it's everywhere. You're made to think that youth is a sexy thing. It seems Hollywood is full of vampires. I'd go as far as to say that this is a problem with your culture in general. I have never seen this kind of behaviour anywhere else that wasn't already influenced by american media. I'm sorry.
edit: spelling
I take your point about the influence media has but this is not unique to America.
Predation on underage girls and boys is global. Paedophiles don’t restrict themselves to national borders.
Sexualizing nudity is another big one.
Girl, no, we practically share a date of birth, and I remember distinctly that 18 has always been the age of consent, including many places outside the US. I was shocked to find out some places had lower legal limits.
The age of consent in your state may surprise you then. It is 16 for most of them. I grew up in Canada, and it was 14 until 2009, and is 16 now. As a father of teenagers, I've noted that age of consent is a double-edged sword, "protecting the children" not only from would-be sexual predators, but also from themselves when they choose to express their gender differently. Because what it really is, is an age of asserting bodily autonomy. Whether I like it or not, there comes an age when my teens should have a right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. In my opinion, it's fine to pick an age to be a legal guideline for when a person is incapable of asserting their own rights, but we should immediately defer to the choice of an individual whenever a person is old enough to demand it.
Her grandma's time also had polio, that doesn't mean it would be okay for it to happen again now.
Polio was better back then, bro.
Oh excuse me, I forgot about the value of bespoke artisanal viruses.
I think that back then, people defined pedophilia in terms of the perpetrator's attraction, not in terms of impact to the victim. Essentially, "is it weird for the adult to be attracted to their body?" more than, "would the young person be harmed, physically or emotionally, by sex?" Now we are more evolved.
Back when I was a kid, pedophilia meant what she said - attraction to a prepubescent child. If someone was an adult who thought a physically developed 15-year-old was sexy, that was just logical. Because their bodies had secondary sex characteristics. (It wasn't considered a good idea to actually have sex with them, at least from what I could see. Maybe in Azalia's experience it was considered OK.)
But if an adult thought that a flat and hairless child was attractive, that was messed up on their part. The same way people think that furries or scat play or other fetishes were messed up. But even more so. There was just nothing to consider sexy about an actual child.
Now, we consider the impact to the victim. Pedophilia is defined as attraction to a victim under the age of consent. Because their brain is not fully developed, their body can't handle pregnancy, they are socially able to be manipulated, and a host of other reasons.
I am not trying to be accused of being an apologist, but from someone who grew up in the 90s, I find it strange that we use the same word for someone who rapes a toddler, as someone who "statutory rapes" (as it would be called) a 15-year-old. They are both wrong, but it seems to me that one is much worse than the other. Both because of the attraction (or I guess power fantasy) on the part of the adult, and the impact to the victim.
I think Azalia is wrong to say it was always totally fine. But she is right that it was considered right or wrong for a different reason back then. The definition was different.
I was born in 1975. I don't care how you want to frame it, over 20 people having sex with 15 years olds were considered pedophiles in the 90's. We would even "joking" ask our friends if they had their pedo-pass with them if they smooched with someone 2 years younger.
No age of consent varies from place to place. Pedo is a medical term with a precise meaning that doesn't vary from jurisdiction and carries the same definition you originally listed.
We impose restrictions both legally, ethically, morally and socially beyond the minimum has has hair and boobs because we care about people being emotionally healthy first with legal penalties and then social ones.
In many places a 40 year old could interact with a 17-18 year old legally without going to jail but would experience shame social consequences and friction designed to encourage people not to be assholes.
Sometimes this even works.
They were taking about pedophile being used colloquially. Medical definitions and social definitions often differ.
When the word is a medical, technical, or scientific word the actual definition is the only definition and anyone else using it differently is just wrong.
Language is constantly changing, buddy. You're fighting a losing battle.
No for example your lung will never mean your kidney even if the majority of people failed anatomy technical terms mean what experts say they mean not what others say
Right, that's an anatomical body part, not a word used to categorize people.
Technically there's a distinct word for prepubescent and pubescent attraction, just day to day it doesn't make sense to talk about the nuance because someone will mistake nuance for some sort of green light.
Was this the 1890's? I was born in '82, and I can't think of a single time someone was like "oh an adult and a 15 year old child? Yeah that's okay."
This is straight priori falacy. Why the fuck are you arguing the 'degrees of okay-ness' for sex with children. This is fucking baffling.
Thinking one thing is worse doesn't mean you endorse anything else.
Saying, "Both these things are bad, and one is worse," is not the same as saying, "One of these things is more okay than the other." Neither one is okay.
If we cannot compare bad things without that comparison implying, "one of them is more GOOD than the other," then all bad things are equally bad. If I said that committing pedophilia is worse than beating your wife, am I now saying that beating your wife is better? What about stealing from the cash register at work, or jaywalking? Are all bad things just equally bad, with no comparison possible, or else we're praising the virtues of crime?
To your first point, in that sentence I wasn't talking about actually dating or having sex with the 15 year old. I was talking about looking at them, and thinking they are attractive. So no, nobody would say that the "relationship" was okay, but they wouldn't roundly condemn someone for being attracted to them, or having the urge to look at them sexually, in their own head.
It used to be relatively acceptable to say something like, "Man, I sure think that 15 year old looks hot, but of course I won't go anywhere near her, because she is too young," but never, ever, to say the same about a 5 year old. That first sentiment is the basis of many distasteful songs and jokes and movies. The second one would be met with confusion and revulsion for even thinking it.
And once again, I am not saying that is right. I am just saying how attitudes have changed. For the better. Now we say that even looking at a teenager is wrong. That looking at their body is as bad as looking at a very young child's body. Because in both cases, it's not how messed-up you are in the head to even think about it. It's about how it would harm them to go through with it. And that's a better attitude.
They're not looking for a nuanced opinion. They want to be outraged and self-righteous, not to have a conversation.
A girl having a child at 12 is different when the dad is say... anywhere from 12-15 vs when the dad is 40.
Given the number of chickens we slaughter in the US, this is a drop in the ocean.
Sure, if you're into animal rights.
But absent that context, it just sounds like she's guilty of practicing the wrong religion. Like, if she'd hosted a BBQ for her Christian church group with a bunch of dead chickens, who else would be complaining?
Better out-of-sight and out-of-mind, I guess.
There's a difference between the slaughter of animals for food, where it's a heavily regulated process by the USDA to ensure it's as safe, sanitary and humane as possible, and done for a reasonable purpose (feeding people) vs just killing chickens in your home because you think it'll enable you to perform magic
One of the funny things about regulation of the industrialized abattoirs is that the government is far more interested in regulating what you can film and report that on how the businesses actually behave.
The horror stories that come out of these facilities would make Upton Sinclair faint.
Funnily enough I actually work in the industry. I work at the corporate office of a national company that works in several hundred food processing facilities. I also married into a farming family. So I'm just close enough to the food industry to get a really good idea of just what goes down. The most damning thing I've learned is some facilities are terrible but most are pretty good.
One of my duties is managing the company's incident and claims database and while there's plenty of facilities which haven't had an accident in over a decade, there's some facilities that have a reportable accident daily. Every day there's someone who doesn't leave work in the same shape they arrived in. And the people working in these facilities are the most vulnerable people, the formerly encarcerated, immigrants and undereducated minorities. The people who work in these facilities often have no better options available to them.
This is why we need stronger regulatory bodies. Some facilities are dangerous and should not be open (this is across all food producing and processing facilities, not just meat processing plants. There's RTE (ready to eat, meaning you can literally pick up the food off the conveyor and safely eat it) facilities for example that need to be shut down due to terrible safety practices. There's farms that need to be shut down due to dangerous contamination on their crops. This isn't a problem of "meat bad" but a problem of some businesses not upholding basic food safety/safety/animal wellfare standards
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it
For positive change to occur in a specialized industry you need industry knowledge. Yes that introduces conflicts of interest that have to be managed, but to regulate an industry you have limited knowledge of will just lead to chaos and garbage legislation.
For me, I'm just the computer janitor. I keep the servers and computers running and get poked to create a lot of reports from the databases. I'm also at the corporate level where I get to hear a lot of tea regarding what goes on in the field and I'm occasionally invited on site visits so that I can know that I'm giving the folks I support the right tools to do their jobs. So I've got a decent idea of what goes on in the ground and in the field, but I'm also not beholden to the industry
Becoming an executioner because you oppose the death penalty is the punchline to a joke.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azealia_Banks
it sounds like the controversy and negative attention is the point, and this post just further rewards the behavior
outrage is its own reward for some
Man she us all over the place with ages there.
How many times do you think they thought about what age they were comfortable going down to when the right answer was none of this?
This is literally how 4chan’s /pol/ has been coping with this.
These are apparently all 14-16 year olds who were looking for social advancement, so this is all okay.
So she thinks being a 15 yr old horning on 40 yr olds because of daddy issues is the same as 60+ yr olds raping kids being ‘given to them’ by another 40 yr old stranded out on an island?
The fuck ? this person needs to be held in a padded room away from children please. And please slap the drugs out of her dumb face. She’s fucking cooked enough.
Yeah, as societies we don't tend to ban things that nobody does. Civilized societies have banned sex with underaged people because it's harmful for the kids and because people are driven to do it.
Quick! Get her a Spot on Fox News!
-People who believe Pizzagate!
She's too chaotic to stay on point.
She's at Kanye West level of insanity.
Ah yes, the “things were worse in the past and we’re still here, so it should be worse now too” argument.
It’s a conservative favorite to justify fucking kids, fucking over minorities and women, and generally seeking to ruin the people you were told to hate.
This bitch needs medication.
Purely psychosomatic
Lie down on the couch. (What does that mean?!)
Wacky cunt.
I was going to make a comment that it depends on location, but then I pulled up the state for Nicaragua and even over there women are only giving birth in any significant numbers after 16-17. So yea maybe not significantly. Dude's weird
Age of consent is 18 in Iraq. There was a movement to lower it recently and it got shut down hard.
And these fucking people try to justify 14 in US.
Azealia Banks is a woman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azealia_Banks
But I agree she is weird.
I'm a dude. He's a dude. She's a dude. We're all dudes, hey.
Who loves orange soda?
Oh man. It is that azealia banks... Wtf?
I used to enjoy some of her stuff but had no idea she was so unhinged
Edit - looking more into it, it looks like she was raped as a teenager. While it in no way excuses her comments, that sort of early psychological damage really doesn't help form a healthy relationship with sex without style serious work.
"Dude" can refer to women too: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/282694/is-dude-becoming-gender-neutral
I regularly refer to my single digit age daughter as dude.
And so she doesn’t have a problem with him lying about it for the votes…
This person is high on stupid.
If it had been just the first paragraph, you could argue it's satire. It's just so absurd.
that's a very strange phrasing.
do you mean "people shouldn't be having kids until they're mature and comfortable financially" ?
You do realize that there are other reasons to fuck besides to have kids?
you do realize your comment doesn't make sense in this thread ?
Grass
Touch it
People are having kids before that.
That is what a DAESH person thinks: all women are chattel, regardless of the age as long as the menfolk are pleased.
Future generations treating past generations with disdain is kind of the whole point of social progress. Slavery has only been a social taboo in the last couple centuries max. Women's equal political rights are even more recent, only about 100 years. LGBT rights are barely a generation old. So wtf is this argument? It's logical extension is "infant exposure is OK, the Romans did it just fine"
Truly spoken as someone who obviously never had the misfortune of crossing the path of a pedophile in her life.
Azealia: you're cute and all, but kindly go fuck yourself.
How does being "cute" play into this at all?
Cute girls often think they can say any old shit and people will forgive them because they're cute. Or they'll play dumb to get out of taking responsibility, and many men fall for that.
The whole "If they're hot I'll give them a pass".
She's been denied.
Not everyone reaches their peak at 13 like you do. Most need some time to mature before understanding the difference between what they're into, and what the raging hormones in their body are just compeling them to do. That's why these laws exist, because 13 year olds don't know what they want, and predators can easily con them into believing it's them. Because predators aren't all exclusively 40 year olds with visible red flags.
What about the rest?
Rest of my comment:
In short, there are no "rest." No human has magically become mature while their body is full of puberty hormones compelling them to be an idiot. You become mature through experience. That's it. That's the only thing that does it.
So if you have enough sexual experience by the time you're 13 to be "mature" enough to know what you want, then you've been molested. Otherwise it's a bunch of hormones telling you what you want, not "maturity."
Everything sexual at that age sounds appealing when you are full of those hormones AND HAVE NO EXPERIENCE to tell what the good choices are from the bad.
When considering the cause and effect of sex - PREGNANCY - I think it's better to make sure immature people cannot get pregnant at 13 and ruin their future before they've lived it.
pregnancy is a worst outcome but it is not the only one. maturity for sex varies wildly across people and some are ready earlier. i understand now how big the differences between people are, and everybody thinks their own experience is universal, and that leads to misunderstanding. i hope my report will demonstrate another viewpoint.
Pregnancy is THE ONLY biologically intended outcome of sex. Humans are mammals. Sex is how they reproduce. It isn't anything more than that no matter how good it feels
Maturity for sex does not vary wildly. You are conflating cultural acceptance, and age of consent for something it is not: maturity. Otherwise, state the name of the culture that believes 13 year olds are mature enough to raise children. Because no culture believes sex doesn't lead to pregnancy. That's something immature people tell themselves to justify their mistakes.
You are doing an incredibly awful job of convincing me or anyone you are mature. I don't care how old you are now, you shouldn't have kids if you are willing let them fuck whoever they want at 13 because you think they MIGHT be mature enough to not get pregnant.
Thats not just immature, it's flagrantly stupid. You'll be a grandma in your 30's, and still not be mature enough to understand why that's a bad thing.
I'm sorry but this is an attack that i don't take well.
Humans are mammals, yes, but you're missing a whole lot of cultural layer here. Humans have physical contact to show affection and close-ness, or why do you think (some) people hug? I'm not advocating for teenage pregnancy, just to be clear here. I'm not even advocating for teenage sex, in fact. I'm advocating for letting people think for themselves and taking the demands of teenagers seriously.
All too often i see the fear of teenagers having sex weaponized to prevent teenagers from having romantic relationships. It happened to me. Teenagers need exposure and experiences to grow up, or they're never gonna mature.
I completely agree. I just think those experiences work best when they are safe from easily preventable trauma - like what having a child at 13 can turn into.
I'm not advocating for teenagers to not think for themselves, I just don't think they're old enough to be parents.
That is the very likely consequences of sex by our biological design. And there's less options to prevent it than ever.
Teenagers do not have the maturity to understand the consequences of sex, just the extreme desire to have it.
And through the smallest mistake a teenager can turn into a parent with parental responsibilities. 13 year olds can't hold a good job, let alone raise a child on their own.
Protecting that from happening used to be a regularly accepted American cultural goal. And I agree it's one that certainly got warped into something weaponized, but the point was to protect childhoods from unnecessarily becoming parenthoods.
I'm sorry about that. To be clear, what I meant by "if you're having kids" is "if you're having kids as a teenager because you're just okay with that." (it was a hypothetical, not a direct comment at you)
Clearly I don't think teenagers should.
Yes, I agree that the weaponization of sex against teens can fuck up their personal lives. (It admittedly also did mine.) But there's certainly a middle ground between that and giving them complete freedom.
Finding a balance between safety and experience isn't easy, but erring on the side of caution is best. It's what provides teens the opportunity to gain maturity rather than force it on them.
Azealia Banks was born in 1991 ...
What the fuck did I just read?
You’re a broken person.
A personal anecdote made honestly
Frothing hate
Lemmy's still got that Reddit stink all over it
It was a basic observation, criticism = / = “frothing hate.”
That explains everything.
It doesn't...
There are plenty of sane ones, they just don't make the news all the time because mainstream American news runs on outrage and just well, plain old rage.
As an old guy I can say this is true. It was no big deal back then as people matured more quickly. My wife was already raising her younger brothers by that age. Cooking dinners, cleaning the barns, looking after things for a week while they traveled. People now don't seem to mature until they are in their twenties. If ever.
Myself and many others were doing those things when we were 14 too. It doesn't mean we should have been fucking grown adults. Those adults would have been taking advantage of us. It was the same back in your day. The dudes getting with teenagers by buying them alcohol and cigarettes were creeps. Regardless of how "accepted" it was back then.
I have no idea if you're trolling but god I hope you are
Look at all the famous groupies back then. Look at the commercials with Brooke Shields. Nobody got upset. Great Granny got married even earlier. Times do indeed change
The problem with your previous comment is not about you stating it happened, it's the justification you came up with.
There was quite a lot of pearl-clutching over Brooke Shields at the time.
One of my grannies got married at 16. She was a miserable woman who hated every day she was alive, yet lived into her 80s. Conclude what you like from that anecdote: I have no idea if she was like that due to early marriage, or if she had other reasons to be hateful and bitter.
You need to have your hard drive raided
Lol..I never said it was good. I said it was accepted far more then