Ah yes, cause the thing that makes pedophilia bad is the immediate payment, if you defer that until the victim is off age it’s all good.
It’s hebephilia not pedophilia, though the immorality doesn’t change
Someone needs to check that guys computer for CP.
I see republicans are speeding up on the weird lane. No matter how you dress this question there is still the fact that a 65+ man paying millions to have sex with a 14 year old kid. Kinda gives you a peek into what kind of people are the richest and most politically influential.
“Hey should the rich and wealthy be able to rape children as long as they pay them afterwards?”
What a weird fucking question to ask.
I think it must be fairly normal to wonder things like this. Once I saw a video of a man standing on a busy sidewalk offering passersby the opportunity to shoot a staple gun into his bare chest for a dollar or so. It was immediately fascinating. The proposition was so direct: pay money to inflict pain. And people were taking him up on it!
Interesting, sort of in the same way that this Twitter guy’s question is interesting. The same way other moral thought experiments like “the trolley problem” are interesting.
No. What? “Is it moral if I rape a girl for money” is not peak philosophy. It’s not even a new idea. Holy fuck. You give philosophy a bad name.
What do you think about the parallel I was trying to draw between the video I mentioned and this guy’s question about paying for rape? I thought the reason that someone’s interest could be caught by the video is similar in nature to the reasons someone might wonder “is it okay to pay to hurt someone”? And that train of thought leads naturally enough to “Well how much harm is permissible for what amount of money?” which leads naturally enough to imagining specific circumstances.
And those trains of thought are similar to the thought behind people’s ancient musings about other tricky question of morality like the trolley problem. It’s not peak philosophy it’s just ordinary human thought. You shouldn’t be so afraid or repulsed by it or whatever.
Lol no. If this was something I thought was said in “good faith,” then it would be fine to discuss. However, I don’t think it was said in good faith and I think the person was being intentionally disgusting. It’s not ordinary human thought. But thanks for being so dismissive.
But thanks for being so dismissive.
Like you weren’t?
The train of thought that youtube story leads me to is not ‘how much harm is permissible’ but ‘why are humans such vile creatures?’. Does everbody just love the thought of hurting others? Is this normal? Why the fuck would anyone want to staple some guys chest?
The question reads like a sexual fantasy, to be clear. It doesn’t read like a normal innocent question. It reads like he thinks a LOT about how he can rape kids and get away with it socially, hence the poll. It does not read innocently. It is entirely too specific.
You’re probably right about this specific dude’s motivations for posing the question, but I think I am right that this type of thought is entirely normal and even common to have. You are right about the dismissiveness too, sorry.
Just chiming in to say I think you’re right in that these types of thought experiments pop into people’s heads pretty regularly, albeit with way less “trying to justify a creepy sex fantasy” intent like the public poll post seems to have.
Though I have to question why it was public in the first place. I don’t know who the poster is or if it’s their real name, but what if it’s less “projection” and more “morbid curiosity” in seeing just how many people would answer yes to this heinous question? There is some merit in gauging reactions to this from a social psychology point of view (even if this is an non-scientific example).
Follow-up thought. Without morbid thought experiments, how do people create horror stories and gritty crime dramas like L&O:SVU when a story has no particular real life basis? I’m not sure it’s wholly possible in a fictional novel or show. There’s a reason people eat crime dramas up; it’s fascinating and horrifying to see how far a real and fictionalized human will go in various circumstances.
In a way, it’s a manifestation of the “call of the void” situation, where an intrusive thought (what if I jump off this bridge right now? what happens if I yank the steering wheel driving 50mph? spook a herd of grazing horses? slap grandpa upside the head? while out hunting??) so I think its purpose is more to keep you aware of harzards in whatever the situation may be. Avoidance through sudden acknowledgement of the risk.
Again, I don’t recognize this person or know any background, but maybe they posed the question as a wacky means of self-preservation on a broader level? As if the poller thought, “How many of my viewers would prostitute out their child if given the most forgiving, financially advantageous, and seemingly consensual circumstances?” to figure out how worried they should be about a certain percentage of their friends, neighbors, and/or followers. Avoidance through asking weird questions publicly.
Edit: Holy ship I managed to write a whole novel on my thought experiment about thought experiments ahhahh.
i think there is something to be said about the value of money, there is ALWAYS an amount of money people are willing to be paid to do something.
What a weird fucking question to ask.
wait until you figured out how we discovered science
or better yet, if you’re more of a normie, who figured out you can drink cow milk first.
Haha Lemmy hates to hear this, good luck.
yeah, i do a bit of lolcowing on lemmy from time to time, same as i did on reddit.
It’s fun. Would recommend people stop caring about the shit they read/write on the internet, its mostly bullshit anyway.
I don’t look to create unnecessary consternation but for an outcast community this place sure can be super hostile to ‘against the grain’ opinions. I don’t want adulation but an explanation to go with the downvote parade would be nice sometimes.
Not even talking about political or ethical subjects, take OP above you as an example.
“How we discovered science” this is such a stupid statement. Nonsensical.
It was a woman. Who figured out we could drink other animal milks first, by watching a calf drink it. She probably needed it for a human baby. A lot of stuff that doesn’t make sense to men makes sense to women.
And it is a weird and boring question in the OP. He wants to rape a girl for money. Gee, that’s never been asked before. What a deep philospher.
You got way too hung on their example. The point was science is tinkering and following weird curiosities but with extra steps. Virtually every major innovation in the last century (for most of civilisation I would argue) has been a result of indirect tinkering, or benefitted from a completely unrelated field.
You were in such a rush to defend their point, you missed mine. Which is that pseudoscience and pseudointellectualism look exactly like this - made up bullshit based in nothing. I’m not “top hung up” on their examples - that’s exactly how I’m showing their nonsense. Get some intellectual hygiene. Question things. Demand proof and exactitudes. THAT is the basis of real critical thought and scientific reasoning.
Sure, curiosity can lead to scientific advancements. Or it can lead to conspiracies. It depends on what it’s being based on.
Advancements are made in the cognitive mortar between the bricks of knowledge we have. If those bricks aren’t made of anything substantial, the mortar won’t save it either. Gotta have a basis in something solid. That’s why we take measurements and data.
It was a woman. Who figured out we could drink other animal milks first, by watching a calf drink it. She probably needed it for a human baby. A lot of stuff that doesn’t make sense to men makes sense to women.
that seems plausible. I would imagine this happened on pretty early in human history, but it would have to be late enough that we had somewhat domesticated animals.
And it is a weird and boring question in the OP. He wants to rape a girl for money.
it’s certainly weird, but so are a lot of questions, and it’s boring, but then again, when are questions ever exciting lol.
As for philosophy, the single most intriguing question that has ever been asked is quite literally “what is the meaning of life”
Richard forgot to include nonbinary and intersex options in his poll. What a blunder! Egg on his face, he sure looks incompetent
Because sex is so bad and it’s a terrible decision to be set up for life for 2 minutes of work? I get the principle and all, but there’s people cleaning septic tanks and stuff for much less. I don’t understand what’s so much worse about sex. Gross? Painful? I’ve personally been through so much shit in my life and I’m almost ok but broke AF. I couldn’t imagine turning down this deal. I can’t imagine it being someone else’s problem if it’s not even my problem.
We make kids go through much worse shit just for the sake of “making them a productive member of society”. Where’s my foreskin? Who got to make that decision for me while I live with the consequences?
“I’m poor and circumcised so that makes it ok to rape minors” that’s you pal.
Yeah, children cannot consent to sex with adults so even if he could argue that poverty under capitalism is worse than rape then society has completely failed those children. Wealth disparity under capitalism has grown too large and I fear that capitalism is both destroying the planet and society.
Why can they consent to anything else? What’s the difference?
The problem is the power in balance. A teen or child cannot consent to sex with an adult because they are not on the same cognitive level and the adult could easily be preying on and manipulating the child.
The power imbalance exists whether they’re having sex or not. That power imbalance is constantly exploited for anything and everything that isn’t sex and isn’t getting anyone paid.
In poor third world countries you find old men paying the father to let them rape his virgin underage girl or force marry her. His justification is that they are poor and that man paid them “a lot”. Only the lowest scummiest cunts of people would allow this upon their daughter and set her for life-long trauma of all types.
Nothing gets the pedophiles riled up quite like a hypothetical
Just to point out, having a paraphilic disorder for pubescent teenagers is not pedophilia but hebephilia (i.e. having sexual interest in pubescent teenagers of either sex between 11 and 16)
as a graphic designer, i try to remind fellow graphic designers that apart from circumstances and conversations specifically related to your craft, colloquial use is totally acceptable and that you shouldn’t be insisting on pointing out the difference between a font and a typeface, because no one cares and it’s annoying as fuck.
not to mention everyone knows what people mean when they say “font” so there’s no point in pedantic "ackshually"s. they just make you sound like a dick.
now that’s what i think about designers being pedantic about designer terms.
idk what i can even say about your comment.
Precisely.
As a graphic designer you don’t deal in life or death situations.
when people talk about pedophiles they clearly mean people who act on it; no one cares what’s in your heart or brain, that’s between you and your psychiatrist. it’s not even a legal term so it doesn’t matter in “life or death” situations.
I don’t care
Can’t even discuss serious mental disorders anymore without being dogpiled smh
People who are afflicted with these need help but people would rather just talk about how they deserve to be killed instead for something they never chose to have
Everyone loves to talk about how they would hurt others if they could and how their version is the only one that is just and fair.
I know that there’s a difference between a pedophile and a hebephile. I know that the differences is that pedos are attracted to prepubescent kids and hebes are attracted to pubescent kids. There is a difference between the two.
That being said, there’s no way to say this online without sounding like someone who is attracted to kids.
Just to point out, colloquially you are wrong, and there is a colloquial use of the term pedophile. We are not discussing this in an academic setting and it also doesn’t change the content of this discussion to redefine terms to academic ones, so no need to change it. Everyone understands what’s being referenced here because it was specified as being a 14 year old in the OP.
What exactly is your purpose in making this distinction between these terms?
I know I’m running full on into the blades of pedophilic panic here and I’m going to be accused of being a pedophile, but being attracted to pubescent teens is not a paraphilic disorder at all and perfectly normal.
I am all for protecting minors and 100% support laws that criminalizes adults having sexual contact with them, but I think we do a disservice to people’s mental health to paint normal, healthy physical attractions as being deviant, and I don’t think it does anything to protect minors.
I’m going to be accused of being a pedophile
Proudly declaring yourself a guy who draws the line at fucking 10 year olds.
I am all for protecting minors and 100% support laws that criminalizes adults having sexual contact with them, but
I explicitly stated that it should be illegal to have sex with minors, yet you still accuse me of saying it’s okay to have sex with minors.
Thanks for demonstrating, so succinctly and clearly, how irrational those gripped by pedophile panic have become.
I explicitly stated that it should be illegal to have sex with minors
being attracted to pubescent teens is not a paraphilic disorder at all and perfectly normal
Being attracted to 11 year olds, particularly when you’re of Epstein Age, is decidedly not normal.
how irrational those gripped by pedophile panic have become
Guy on his second bottle of Jim Bean yelling about how he’s being persecuted for doing a perfectly normal amount of drinking, even after he said he’d never actually endorse puking on your carpet.
Being attracted to 11 year olds, particularly when you’re of Epstein Age, is decidedly not normal.
Noone said 11 year olds. I said pubescent. Notice how, to make your point, you have to lie about what was said. It makes it appear that even you realize it’s bs. Hell, especially considering you’ve swapped one lie out for another. How many different lies will you tell about what was said before you admit you might be wrong?
Guy on his second bottle of Jim Bean yelling about how he’s being persecuted for doing a perfectly normal amount of drinking, even after he said he’d never actually endorse puking on your carpet.
This literally makes no sense. Noone is talking about puking or overdrinking. We’re talking about normal, healthy physical attraction. I’ve explicitly excluded action from my claim if what is acceptable.
Just to point out, having a paraphilic disorder for pubescent teenagers is not pedophilia but hebephilia (i.e. having sexual interest in pubescent teenagers of either sex between 11 and 16)
Sure sounds like you said 11 to me!
It’s not “normal” to be attracted to 14 year olds. It’s not “normal” to be specifically attracted to any age group. It’s honestly all a kink. Are you attracted to elderly people? No? That’s because you have a different kink. And don’t get into stupid biological bullshit of reproductive success etc, a woman in her 40s who’s given birth before is in some cases much less likely to die in childbirth than a 14 year old who hasn’t done it before, arguably. That some people have breeding kinks with their pedo kinks is on them. Like seriously stop being so sexually narcissistic, there are thousands of kinks that combines in thousands of ways. Why do you think your kink is the “normal” one? Like get over yourself.
Whether kinks are disorders or not is a separate topic. Where kinks come from - we don’t know 100%. There’s some evidence certain brain conditions can cause disorders and sexual dysfunction, so it’s possible pedophilia could be induced. Personally I am curious if oxytocin plays a role in pedophilia. You can get oxytocin (note: this is not OXYCONTIN) compounded in a nasal spray from compounding pharmacies. Just need a doctor’s prescription for it, it has been used experimentally for social anxiety. I think some pedophiles likely get extra oxytocin from children (and other groups get it from animals in some cases) which is part of what triggers their attraction even if they don’t want to harm children.
If you are attracted to someone, that doesn’t entitle you to fucking them. Even if you can convince them to say yes somehow.
Consent cannot be given if it’s not safe to give dissent. Meaning a “yes” doesn’t count if a “no” wouldn’t count either. Most kids cannot readily say “no.” They cannot consent.
It’s not “normal” to be specifically attracted to any age group.
I said nothing about age, but about development.
Why do you think your kink is the “normal” one?
I said nothing about my own personal attractions. If you’re asking, I’m not a hebephile. I would be lying if I were to claim I’ve never found one physically attractive, but my general physical sexual attraction is probably about as vanilla as it gets. My actual kinks, not so much. But that’s a completely different topic.
Just like I defend homosexuality as a normal, healthy attraction, I defend this. That doesn’t make me gay, or a hebephile.
If you are attracted to someone, that doesn’t entitle you to fucking them.
And I pretty clearly said explicitly otherwise. Literally this whole thing about consent is just completely pulled out of your ass as it has nothing to do with anything I’ve said. Hell, you’re whole rant is completely detached from the reality of anything I’ve said.
Yeah “development” what a creepy word and again, “development” has nothing to do with it. That’s why I brought up the breeding kink part - the classic argument every libertarian creep who does the “It’s hebephile not pedophile” dog whistle says this EXACT thing. Like you all are clearly watching the same porn. It’s so weird of you. Idk how I have had this exact conversation with so many of my male peers. The other points I made are entirely relevant when it comes to fucking children. Many people think rape is a turn off.
“Development” is meaningless. It doesn’t make it okay because the person looks a certain way. A “developed” body is not an “adult” body; many adult women have no breasts and no curves, and many young girls, some as young as 9!! get breasts. Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not “developed”?
That you associate “development” with sexual attraction is a YOU kink. It’s not an EVERYONE kink. It’s not the “natural” state for people. It’s a kink. That you’re justifying it with “well she looks fuckable and like she could have a baby to me” with no self awareness is… yikes.
Yeah “development” what a creepy word and again, “development” has nothing to do with it.
lol. It literally has everything to do with it. That’s the whole point: when children enter into and finish puberty, they become capable of reproduction, so from an evolutionary perspective, that is a normal time to start finding them attractive. Just labelling it as “creepy” is an attempt to undermine the point because it’s hard to actually address it.
Like you all are clearly watching the same porn.
I tell you I’m not into it, and what do you do? Lie, and claim I’m into it. I’ll state it again, it never ceases to amaze me how far people will go to deny reality to hold onto their irrational beliefs.
Many people think rape is a turn off.
Agreed. Which is why, as I’ve already stated, it’s 100% wrong to have sex with them.
Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not “developed”?
The fact that you need to ask this question just goes to show how absolutely ignorant you are of the topic, and probably shouldn’t even be discussing it at all.
That you associate “development” with sexual attraction is a YOU kink.
Holy shit, this insane. lol This debate never ceases to crack me up. You’re literally arguing that being attracted to people who have gone through puberty is a “kink.” Even if you think that the stage of development that it’s “appropriate” to become attracted to them is full adult, Tanner stage V, you still are arguing that development is important. But you are claiming this is nothing but a kink.
That you’re justifying it with “well she looks fuckable and like she could have a baby to me” with no self awareness is… yikes.
I have full self awareness of what I’m saying. It’s the people who claim that development stages has nothing to do with it and is a “kink” are the ones who lack the self-awareness to understand how little they know of what they talk about… yikes.
Reproduction has nothing to do with sexual arousal in people, unless they have a reproduction kink. It is not “normal” to hinge your arousal on reproduction. Ancient humans likely had no idea sex acts lead to babies. Their arousal was hinged on other things, kinda like most animals. Do you think stallions know they will have a baby when they breed a mare? Probably not. Reproduction is again, a kink. Which I have informed you repeatedly. That it’s been normalized by the groups you roll in, is a you thing.
You are narcissistic about your kinks. A lot of men are, because they often keep them secret until they go onto forums for that kink where they can all engage in it together and share porn and ideas. Then they think “I’m vanilla and normal,” and project their kinks onto reality as if that’s objective. It’s not. You’re wrong.
It’s creepy because of what it implies about your general philosophy to kids.
You are into it. You are saying it’s “normal” as long as they are developed. You’ve admitted finding young teens attractive before. This is about you. Stop being a coward.
Answer me: Is the adult woman with no breasts and no curves not “developed”?
who have gone through puberty is a “kink.”
You’re moving goalposts. First, you say it’s because they are developed- which describes a body type. Then you say it’s because they can reproduce - which describes their eggs/womb and ability to carry a baby - which a “developed” 12 year old likely cannot do compared to a 35 year old who is flat chested and not curvy. And ‘above puberty’ includes people who cannot reproduce and are sometimes not “developed,” such as elderly women. So which is it? Which do you mean? Or are you just making shit up because you think your kinks are “normal” and you’ve never analyzed or critically thought about them?
All sexual attractions are kinks. That’s my point - there is no “normal” sexual arousal state. Calling it “normal” justifies a kink that harms others and allows for reactionary thinking. It’s the same reason rapists rape and don’t realize it - they think their rape kink is “normal.” Look at Andrew Tate and his fans.
Being attracted to minors is not “normal” as an adult. It’s just “normal” for you.
The man behind the original tweet has also made a post effectively implying that a school affirming a child’s wish to socially transition before telling their parents was the direct cause of them getting raped.
He puts the blame for this kid being raped on the kid, not on the people doing the sexual assault. While also repeatedly misgendering the kid in question.
But sure, child prostitution? Totally fine. No issues there! Makes total sense. /s
The gap between yes/no men and yes/no women is kinda crazy. Also, probably has a lot to do with the audience this post reached.
I’m pretty sure it’s from a bunch of conservative dudes answering that they’re women to try to make conservative beliefs look popular with women. Like an “as a black man…” moment, except it’s “as a woman…”
No… Women can be pedophiles too and you are operating on a biased belief system hoping that the data is incorrect cause you want it to be.
We don’t have that, we have the results of the poll and people are fucked up in the head even when you want them not to be.
Considering that 95% of adults who marry children are men (according to the UN)… yeah nah man. Guys pretend to be women on the internet all the time. And conservatives on Twitter pretend to be groups which they aren’t all the time. There is absolutely 0 chance a higher portion of women answered “yes” to this than men considering the facts of child marriage. It’s not just about “pedophilia” but of patriarchal societies where women are treated more or less as sex objects, things which exist for men and who’s sole purpose is to have babies.
And the fact that historically marriage is initiated by men in basically all countries is unimportant now cause…? And the 5% in your own statistics just… Doesn’t exist?
You want there to be zero chance and refuse to accept any other reality. And yet women do enter into sex work willingly across the world. Women do plenty of things to set their life up like marrying men they don’t love all the time. Your need for a better world than we live in is irrelevant.
Man what are you even talking about right now…? What exactly are you arguing against here? I don’t think we’re on the same page.
I’m saying that women would absolutely take that offer. More than you think. And that you are making up a falsehood in your own head that it must be men to make you feel better about the world even though you have no basis for it other than conspiracy and hopeful wishful thinking.
The best science we have on the matter suggests that a larger portion of men are pedophiles (expressing interest in sexual relations with children), and statistically most offending pedophiles are men. This random poll on Twitter, a site infested with pedophiles and men with disgusting views on women and women’s rights, where any random account can participate, is completely contradictory to the science on the matter. In my opinion, that’s a pretty reasonable indication of the results being skewed by bad actors. There is no actual way to ensure the integrity of the results, as literally anyone can vote and anyone can make a new account to vote (and there are a lot of Twitter bots).
Now, I could see the argument that “women on Twitter are significantly less representative of women than men on Twitter are representative of men”, but it’s hard to see that effect causing this stark of a difference.
You are being downvoted because you think your interpretation is more likely than the other person’s. The point is that anonymous polling data isn’t reliable because people lie or even totally doctor the data. So we need to use common sense and look at other, actually reliable, data to get a better sense of what is true.
You don’t want to do that. So your analysis doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny. That’s all.
It’s an anonymous social media platform with a user base that’s over 1/3rd women more than even the percentage combined up there.
If you think no women at all participated in that poll then you are picking a side that for some reason excuses an entire gender for what can only be considered bias reasons.
Yes I understand it’s untrustworthy but we aren’t saying this is some numbers in a spreadsheet poll, it was a poll on a site that even though we may disagree with it is swarming with a huge amount of real people sitting on their phone users.
So, the only way you could assume that literally no women voted in that poll because “theirs no way they would vote that way” is a cognitive bias from wanting that to be a truth when the more likely answer and the one that is shown to be reality in a world where people (men and women included) prostitute their children for a lot less than the hypothetical.
You are using an absence of a perfect source be excuse to throw away all of the results because you want to. That’s on you, not me.
This guy also has a whole post on Substack complaining that the left is too wary of age gaps in relationships and that this is an “attack on heterosexuality” or whatever. It’s kind of funny how conservatives will decry that queer people are all groomers and yet proclaim that age gaps and adults dating teenagers is part of heterosexual culture under the same breath.
That was some wild and deranged shit holy fuck. And the comments too.
There is a loooooooooooooong fucked up history of this being sanctioned by organized religions of all types. It stems from the patriarchal ideal woman being a baby factory and is absolutely a barbaric practice. The men in these religions are conditioned to be interested in young virginal girls that they call women but treat like property.
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-reveal-patterns-sexual-abuse-religious.html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X20301421
https://www.gotquestions.org/child-marriage.html
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/child-marriage-and-religion-in-the-united-states
Because the only thing that’s keeping them from the most depraved things humans can do is the laws. They grew up wrong. The rest of us are asking to live our authentic lives and they can’t think of anything that would stop us, upon living our authentic lives, from committing depraved acts because that’s what they would do if the laws allowed it. We ask to be allowed to have healthy relationships between consenting adults and they see a dangerous precedent that once we’re allowed to do that, then what else are we allowed to do. Its from a basic difference in where they think ethics and morality come from. I think ethics and morality come from within ourselves and that laws should be written to establish communal protections that allow people to achieve true freedom from oppression. They believe ethics and morality exist separate from humanity and laws exist to ensure intrinsically bad people (everyone) remains moral. Within that group, the repressives we’re talking about in this post are truly the most dangerous.
Look. All this is super complicated and I’m realizing I’m over simplifying entire systems of ethics it took me 35 pages single spaced to describe in college. Its valuable to have discussions about where ethics come from when discussing politics because ultimately that’s what you actually vote on and about
Edit: replied to the wrong comment. I absolutely agree with you
Very well put, thank you
Wait, how come she’s old enough to make the decision to have sex, but she’s not old enough to have access to her money?
Because a) statute of limitations and b) lawyers cost money. No, I think you are right, the simpler explanation makes more sense.
To be fair most women i know had sex at 14 or younger. None got 10 million for it.
Having sex with your peers is are appropriate teenage behavior. Being preyed upon by pedophiles isn’t. Being taught about selling your body also isn’t. I’m not sure where you’re having problems “being fair” here.
I think the assumptions you made is that 1, they were peers and 2, that they regret it in hindsight. Im still in the male/no category, but even with their much older and more mature brains they still think that was a consensual interaction.
Im just thinking the wider possibilities and Ideas because, let’s be honest, we’re not discussing either a possibility or policy change - its just not going to happen.
One was happily fucking her way through men double and triple her age within the first 6 months and had the only regret of an STD - why should she not have been able to take 10 mill for something she was going to do anyway?Does being paid suddenly make it not OK?
Never forget the one thing that the Left and the Right both agree on: women of any age do not have sexual agency.
The Left says men shouldn’t prey on them. The Right says it’s men’s God-given right to prey on them. Both agree that men are always predators and women are always prey. The idea of a woman actually wanting sex is equally deviant to both sides.
Children should not have sex with adults
The fact that you’re trying to paint being anti-statutory rape as misogynistic and heavily imply “the left believes boys who are raped by adults aren’t victims/that adult women having sex with kids isn’t rape” is… yikes. No, children (regardless of sex or gender of anyone involved) cannot consent to sex with adults and yes, children who are groomed will naturally be more likely to see their grooming as normal since it was literally intertwined with the critical period of mental development in their lives. You can make literally anything seem “normal” or “okay” to a lot of people if you can convince them it’s okay when they’re young. Your pedophilia & rape apologia is disgusting, Jesus Christ. You’re actually arguing that abuse victims/nonconsenting people having sex aren’t victims because they can’t accept that they were manipulated. That doesn’t even only affect children, but abused people in general. This isn’t even strictly a left-right thing, people from fucking every part of the political spectrum are wondering wtf is wrong with you after this. Ain’t none of the right-wingers I know advocating for the Epsteins and the Dr. Disrespects of the world, even though I’m from the god damn rural south where children marrying adults is legal and middle-school aged kids can legally bang a typical high school graduate.
I also want to add, for anyone struggling with understanding this or how sexual abuse can harm minors, please read The Body Keeps the Score. Sexual abuse has the same effects on kids as active war combat and torture. Imo it could easily be considered torture. There are automatic things your brain does that keep you alive in these situations and protect you mentally later. But it comes at a cost and your body leaves clues. No one is unaffected by sexual abuse, and all sexual interactions between minors and adults are sexual abuse.
FBI, this guy right here
One of these days we as a society will have to confront the fact that 14 year olds can be and often are attracted to older people. Yes, even girls.
We’re not ready for that conversation yet, but one day.
14 year olds are children, not adults, and whether they are attracted to adults isn’t the concern. The fact that you think the problem here is that society won’t allow children to act on their attraction to adults - and not that children should not fuck adults - is a massive self-report.
You have a typo in your username.
I’m dying at the modlog for this one.
reason: what the fuck
Oh, that’s beautiful. Thank you.
☝️ The weird guy in question
I wonder how many women he knows.
What a creeper, it’s almost he wants to do something similar; Yikes, is all I have to say.
The female ratio between yes and no is concerning
Don’t be so willing to assume men didn’t click “yes, woman”.
Don’t be so willing to assume there were no women that clicked that too.
There’s one born every minute as they say. Still, good faith polling on Twitter? No bet.
Looks like a twitter poll. I wouldn’t be super surprised if some of those ‘yes’ answers are from an “as a totally real fe-male person” folks.
don’t forget pick-mes. it’s twitter; the pick-me ratio is probably 12x as high as it is outside.
The way I read this, the guy has vanishingly few women who bother to follow and respond to him. I’m willing to bet at least half of the people who selected “Female, Yes/No” were dudes.
I’m wondering how many of those responders might be teenage women thinking about the lure of having ten million dollars with an older hottie.
10 million dollars is a life changing amount of money, and at 14 you know that. I would have agreed to that at 14, provided he pays first and the acts are somewhat discussed beforehand, and at a secure location. Still would tbh. Doesn’t make it right to allow that though.
I wouldn’t have. And if you look at child stars like Amamda Bynes, who essentially made that deal, it’s not worth it. They are severely fucked up for life. What a weird, cavalier approach to the effects of sexual assault on children.
I’m just talking about me here, so I guessed I’d be allowed to cavalier towards my own life experiences.
I had sex at 14 (the legal age of consent where I live btw) for a lot less than 10 million dollars, usually just peer pressure and low self worth, which teen doesn’t experience that. In retrospect, it doesn’t stand out from the other things I did as a teenager in either a positive or negative thing. Out of all the shit that i did in my youth that I feel had a long lasting effect on me as an adult, this was not one of them. So yes, I’d have taken that deal.
But, like I said, I’m just talking about my experience and how I probably would have felt about it at 14. Doesn’t mean there’s not still a hundred different ways this could go wrong. But 10 million dollars is probably a lot more useful than giving into peer pressure and low self esteem, so fuck I’d have taken it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What was the age of the person you had sex with at 14?
Do you not understand the concept of trauma and how it relates to sexual assault? Ever read The Body Keeps the Score? Maybe you didn’t make it unscathed. Maybe wanting to rape your 14 year old self for $10mil shows it did fuck you up.
Maybe wanting to rape your 14 year old self for $10mil shows it did fuck you up.
Well,then if I took that deal, I’d at least have 10 mil to show for it. Now I’m traumatized and broke ;)
Jokes aside, you don’t know me and you can’t tell me how I should feel about stuff that happened to me. The guy was 27 and I feel fine about it. I’m not trying to argue we should allow it, or that it would be a healthy choice, but if I had 10 mil at 18 because of this interaction, my young adult life would have been hell of a lot easier.
Some people may feel like you and some people may feel like me, but let’s not pretend being the stroke of midnight on your 18th birthday magically makes you grown up. Different people can handle different shit at different ages. There’s stuff in my youth that affected me greatly while my peers hardly noticed it, and on the other side, this is not something I was bothered by, while it would have greatly affected others. People are not a monolith. The law cannot handle that level of complexity so it should obviously err on the side of caution. Not having sex while you could handle it is still a lot better than having sex and not being able to handle it.
You don’t need to agree with me, but this is my perspective on it, so please respect my lived experience and stop calling me “fucked up” because it’s different than yours.
I’d really recommend reading about PTSD and The Body Keeps the Score.
Sometimes you need someone to say, “hey, that’s fucked up,” to give yourself permission to say it too. Sometimes we need people in our lives to say that. Especially about an adult having sex with a 14 year old.
I get that’s what you’d choose. I still think that’s fucked up and you are ignorant to those effects, which are cognitively the same as torture. I don’t think YOU are fucked up though, just that thought is fucked up. I’m sorry I said it like that.
Look at Amanda Bynes now. She doesn’t have money anymore - she’s going to school to be a nail salon lady. Do you genuinely think she’s better off now than you are now? I think she’s under conservatorship and forced to take psychiatric meds. I wouldn’t trade lives with her.
Those could also be 14 year olds that think “I want that money” and have no clue about what to expect. I’ve seen some with an “I don’t really care what’s happening to me” attitude. Maybe they flock to guys like him on twitter?
Or the other commenters are right and those are males. Depending on the numbers that might be more likely.
Meanwhile, I’ll have sex with about anyone for $10m. I’m above the age of consent. Let’s go.
Fucking weirdos wanting child brides while criticizing Muslims and LGBTQ+ people. That video of the young girls getting attacked in Iran for how they dress is exactly what christofascists wish they could do here.
